Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1  
Author: Subject: How to remove radioactivity or shorten half-life (speed-up decay)?
AsocialSurvival
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 8-10-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 4-11-2014 at 12:24
How to remove radioactivity or shorten half-life (speed-up decay)?


I have always wondered if half-life is affected by heat?
Is it affected by anything else?
Can radiations be removed using electricity?
I don't want to wait 100 years for something to decay, life is too short.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by AsocialSurvival]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
macckone
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1386
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline

Mood: Electrical

[*] posted on 4-11-2014 at 12:45


No nothing commonly available will reduce an isotopes half life.
Neutron radiation will generally change the material to an isotope with a shorter half life but that isn't commonly available. It will also make things that are stable into unstable isotopes.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3092
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-victorious.

[*] posted on 4-11-2014 at 12:49


You can't.



Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Metacelsus
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2290
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Cambridge, MA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble

[*] posted on 4-11-2014 at 13:25


In some cases, removing all the electrons from a nucleus prevents decay by prohibiting electron capture. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture#Reaction_deta...) However, this is very rarely applicable.



As below, so above.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
UnintentionalChaos
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1454
Registered: 9-12-2006
Location: Mars
Member Is Offline

Mood: Nucleophilic

[*] posted on 4-11-2014 at 16:36


Oh come on. This is PHDchemist. Don't feed the troll.



Department of Redundancy Department - Now with paperwork!

'In organic synthesis, we call decomposition products "crap", however this is not a IUPAC approved nomenclature.' -Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 10-11-2014 at 09:49


Quote: Originally posted by AsocialSurvival  
I have always wondered if half-life is affected by heat?
Is it affected by anything else?
Can radiations be removed using electricity?
I don't want to wait 100 years for something to decay, life is too short.

[Edited on 4-11-2014 by AsocialSurvival]


Make the material travel at near light speed.

Move the material to as near as possible to a massive black hole.

Both measures slow down time enormously.





View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Amos
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1190
Registered: 25-3-2014
Location: Yes
Member Is Offline

Mood: No

[*] posted on 10-11-2014 at 12:07


Easy to do, just use the neutron generator you made earlier! That's what it's for!!!1



View user's profile View All Posts By User
DraconicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3092
Registered: 1-2-2013
Location: The tiniest college campus ever....
Member Is Offline

Mood: Semi-victorious.

[*] posted on 10-11-2014 at 13:38


Speed it up? I want to *slow down* radioactive decay, so that the meitnerium I made the other day will stick around long enough that I can make some organometallic complexes with it.



Please remember: "Filtrate" is not a verb.
Write up your lab reports the way your instructor wants them, not the way your ex-instructor wants them.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Pyrovus
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 241
Registered: 13-10-2003
Location: Australia, now with 25% faster carrier pigeons
Member Is Offline

Mood: heretical

[*] posted on 10-11-2014 at 14:31


Simple. Change the value of the fine structure constant.

[Edited on 10-11-2014 by Pyrovus]




Never accept that which can be changed.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
phlogiston
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1278
Registered: 26-4-2008
Location: Neon Thorium Erbium Lanthanum Neodymium Sulphur
Member Is Offline

Mood: pyrophoric

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 05:04


Your sig is quite appropiate



-----
"If a rocket goes up, who cares where it comes down, that's not my concern said Wernher von Braun" - Tom Lehrer
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium (zts16)
Administrator
********




Posts: 3016
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: San Marcos, TX
Member Is Offline

Mood: Graduated

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 05:28


Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
Speed it up? I want to *slow down* radioactive decay, so that the meitnerium I made the other day will stick around long enough that I can make some organometallic complexes with it.
Ah, if only that were actually possible... because that would be really awesome.



View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
AsocialSurvival
Harmless
*




Posts: 43
Registered: 8-10-2014
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 09:49


Here's interesting thing, but I don't understand nor believe it. Can somebody explain theoretically is this truth or joke:


Quote:

Using a laser, Professor Ken Ledingham has successfully transformed one of the deadliest products of nuclear fission into inert matter in minutes. The Vulcan laser, housed at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford, has enabled Prof Ledingham and his team to use nothing more than the focused energy contained in light to excite the nucleus of the iodine 129 isotope, with a radioactive half life of 15.7 million years. When hit with laser light the isotope becomes totally inert and safe to handle in less than an hour.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
*****




Posts: 1295
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 11:42


Keep a close eye on it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect




Raney nickel can't hydrogenate dank memes.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
blogfast25
Thought-provoking Teacher
*****




Posts: 10334
Registered: 3-2-2008
Location: Old Blighty
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 12:17


This is not exactly peer reviewed and thus very sparse on details.

"[...] his team to use nothing more than the focused energy contained in light to excite the nucleus of the iodine 129 isotope, [...]"

Presumably at the extreme energy densities (these lasers are used to heat light isotopes to fusion temperatures) the Vulcan laser delivers the nucleus' gets 'fried'.




View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
careysub
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lowest quantum state

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 13:07


Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
This is not exactly peer reviewed and thus very sparse on details.

"[...] his team to use nothing more than the focused energy contained in light to excite the nucleus of the iodine 129 isotope, [...]"

Presumably at the extreme energy densities (these lasers are used to heat light isotopes to fusion temperatures) the Vulcan laser delivers the nucleus' gets 'fried'.


Here is a much, much. much better source of information on this than "The Scotsman":
http://www.nucleonica.net/TC/TC0906/relevant_papers/I129_las...

They are transmuting I-129 with a gamma,n reaction using laser-generated Bremsstrahlung to produce the high energy photons.

This is conventional nuclear transmutation, the normal (only) method of eliminating radionuclides faster than simply letting them decay, though with a somewhat unusual source.

Not that unusual though - using ultra-short lasers to generate relativistic plasmas has been around for decades now.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 922
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 13:14


radioactivity is a property of the nucleus , chemistry only affect the electron so nothing chemical can do anything about radioactive material . physical changes like heat usually affect the atom in general and its electrons in order to rip a nucleus appart you would need millions of degree... the nucleus is a different order of energy entirely . different rules apply to its behavior . it would be like trying to turn on the furnace inside a locked house using a ping pong ball from 20 miles away ... aint gonna happen



Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
careysub
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lowest quantum state

[*] posted on 11-11-2014 at 13:31


Quote: Originally posted by neptunium  
radioactivity is a property of the nucleus , chemistry only affect the electron so nothing chemical can do anything about radioactive material...


There is a particular type of decay that is influenced by the electron cloud around the nucleus - electron-capture decay, which is the capture of an inner electron by the nucleus. In the absence of nearby electrons (e.g. a free nucleus in a vacuum) this cannot occur.

In some special cases changes in the decay rate have been observed. It is easiest to observe in elements with few electrons, Be-7 (half-life of 53.22 days) has had a decay rate change measured as large as 0.8% depending on its chemical environment.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 922
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 13-11-2014 at 11:49


yes careysub , thank you



Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Artemus Gordon
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 178
Registered: 1-8-2013
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

[*] posted on 13-11-2014 at 12:43


"The Vulcan laser can produce short pulses of enormous power - a million billion watts. Pulses were fired at a small lump of gold, which produced enough gamma radiation to knock out single neutrons from iodine-129, converting it to iodine-128. The results of the experiment will be published by the Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics.

Ledingham says that the same technique could be applied to other radioactive wastes like technetium-99, strontium-90 and isotopes of caesium. But a different process would be required for other long-lived wastes like plutonium and americium."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4056-giant-laser-trans...

So, it looks like it's real, but only nibbles around the edges of the nuclear waste problem, even assuming that building a series of lasers each the size of a small hotel would be considered financially feasible for this task.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 17-11-2014 at 14:57


Quote: Originally posted by Brain&Force  
Keep a close eye on it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect


Based upon a fallacy: "The name comes from Zeno's arrow paradox which states that, since an arrow in flight is not seen to move during any single instant, it cannot possibly be moving at all."

Everyone knows if you drink Scalosian water you can speed up enough to see it moving. Spock repaired the Enterprise in minutes. If he had not been seeing so many trails at the time he may have repaired it even more quickly.

Stated realistically just because your time rate is too slow to see it does not mean it's not moving any more than a watched pot takes longer to boil.

In your quantum case is the science flawed by virtue of the fact that to observe something energy is either added or taken away which alters the system from the initial state thus changing the 'thing' under observation. How can one prove the 'thing' is that which existed before the 'observation?

Ok I will take a different route. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_tellurium#Tellurium...

"Naturally occurring tellurium on Earth consists of eight isotopes. Two of these have been found to be radioactive: 128Te and 130Te undergo double beta decay with half-lives of, respectively, 2.2×1024 (2.2 septillion) years (the longest half-life of all nuclides proven to be radioactive)[1] and 7.9×1020 (790 quintillion) years."

How was radioactivity proven? By measuring decay particles. If we assume the universe is 14.7 billion years old and no Te existed until the first star went supernova, what is the age of the oldest possible 128Te atom found on Earth? To toss numbers out say the first star took .7 billion years to form and ignite, and say 6 billion years to burn out to where it went nova, we can guess the oldest 128Te atom is say 8 billion years old. With a half life of 2.2 septillion years what are the odds even one has yet to decay and if not, how did they measure a decay?

Back to Zeno, assuming the fastest thing in his world was a horse running say 45 MPH and he had no instruments of science could we not assume his entire paradox is fatally flawed? Lacking instruments able to discern events in Planck time intervals, is not it possible the experiment yielding the Quantum Zeno effect is as flawed as Zeno's thinking for identical reasons? If we could measure in Planck intervals would we see something moving at C move exactly one Planck length in one Planck time interval? If slower (Zeno's arrow), it would not make it a Planck length but if spacetime is grainy is there such a thing as a length shorter than a Planck length? What I am getting at is on a macroscopic scale the arrow is moving therefore the entire thought experiment is flawed and thus invalid. If you want to prove me wrong go stand in front of the archers target. Possibly you might survive to tell me 'I told you so'. However unless the archer is a poor one you will at least be wounded so your 'I told you so' is equally invalid.

From the page mentioned: "The quantum Zeno effect (also known as the Turing paradox) is a situation in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay."

How can they prove the particle in question was 'unstable' any more than one can choose which 8 billion year old 128Te atom with a half life of 2.2 septillion years is the one which will decay (or not) while the sample is being measured ('observed')? This half life is so much greater than the years the universe has existed, one may as well assume on this scale the Te is brand new and much to young to undergo decay. Or is it? Clearly a decay was observed but the point I am making is how do we know the conditions as well as the theory is valid or even understood in terms of what is really going on in their 'Quantum Zeno experiment'? Maybe my reasoning is lacking in coherency, who can prove theirs is not as well? I have never known a scientist who did not firmly believe in the physical laws and theories they believed, until a better one came along. Put simply one should not be so quick to assume they fully understand the experiment they are conducting nor should they assume their conclusions are as solid as they imagine.





"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
careysub
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lowest quantum state

[*] posted on 17-11-2014 at 15:24


Quote: Originally posted by IrC  

"Naturally occurring tellurium on Earth consists of eight isotopes. Two of these have been found to be radioactive: 128Te and 130Te undergo double beta decay with half-lives of, respectively, 2.2×10^24 (2.2 septillion) years (the longest half-life of all nuclides proven to be radioactive)[1] and 7.9×10^20 (790 quintillion) years."

How was radioactivity proven? By measuring decay particles. If we assume the universe is 14.7 billion years old and no Te existed until the first star went supernova, what is the age of the oldest possible 128Te atom found on Earth? To toss numbers out say the first star took .7 billion years to form and ignite, and say 6 billion years to burn out to where it went nova, we can guess the oldest 128Te atom is say 8 billion years old. With a half life of 2.2 septillion years what are the odds even one has yet to decay and if not, how did they measure a decay?


For any particular Earthly Te-128 atom the odds are: 4.6x10^9/2.2x10^24, or 2x10^-15, but in a mole of them (128 g) 1.25 billion will have decayed. In said mole, one atom will decay every 4 years or so. This has been proven by detecting the decay product (Xe-128) in ancient crystals.

In the case of Te-130 it was detected directly in this experiment:
http://nemo.in2p3.fr/nemow3/
View user's profile View All Posts By User
IrC
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2710
Registered: 7-3-2005
Location: Eureka
Member Is Offline

Mood: Discovering

[*] posted on 17-11-2014 at 17:14


Very interesting. I did not have the numbers but I knew obviously at least some must have decayed by virtue of believing yes they did prove it. However you pick the age of this planet instead of the nearly double figure for the real age of the Te. Clearly it was a long time from being blasted out of an exploding star until coagulating into this planet. I think it is because you are basing this upon the possible age of the 'ancient crystal' as a trap to catch the Xenon and assuming said crystal formed as the Earth formed. True?

My second thought is what a boring molasses drip experiment that must be, hoping you do not miss one decay in ~ a quarter pound of I assume 100 percent pure isotope over 4 years (you said mole, 128 gm, which I assume means a mole of only the 128 isotope). Unless of course the one decay per 4 year figure is also a statistical derivation based upon the amount of Xe. Can I assume this was a statistical derivation since the crystal would contain more than one isotope?




"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" Richard Feynman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
careysub
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1339
Registered: 4-8-2014
Location: Coastal Sage Scrub Biome
Member Is Offline

Mood: Lowest quantum state

[*] posted on 18-11-2014 at 08:41


Quote:
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
Very interesting. I did not have the numbers but I knew obviously at least some must have decayed by virtue of believing yes they did prove it. However you pick the age of this planet instead of the nearly double figure for the real age of the Te. Clearly it was a long time from being blasted out of an exploding star until coagulating into this planet. I think it is because you are basing this upon the possible age of the 'ancient crystal' as a trap to catch the Xenon and assuming said crystal formed as the Earth formed. True?


True - the real age of the crystal won't be quite as old as the planet but you an divide it by some modest value of your choice. When dealing with orders of magnitudes, a factor of two in either direction does not change the picture.

Quote:
My second thought is what a boring molasses drip experiment that must be, hoping you do not miss one decay in ~ a quarter pound of I assume 100 percent pure isotope over 4 years (you said mole, 128 gm, which I assume means a mole of only the 128 isotope).


Indeed it is a painstaking, tedious process to detect double beta decay in real time in anything. I have a close friend who worked on the UCI experiment headed by Michael Moe that made the first detection of this decay process in the 1980s. It was years of work.

Quote:
Unless of course the one decay per 4 year figure is also a statistical derivation based upon the amount of Xe. Can I assume this was a statistical derivation since the crystal would contain more than one isotope?


Te-128 is 31.74% of natural tellurium, so the concentration in a rock is the tellerium content (whatever that is) multipiled by this value. Detecting the Xe-128 would require the most sensitive isotope detection techniques (probably accelerator mass spectrometry).
View user's profile View All Posts By User
aga
Forum Drunkard
*****




Posts: 7028
Registered: 25-3-2014
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 18-11-2014 at 14:23


Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
You can't.

Or more accurately, nobody knows how that could be done, based on what we currently know.

Whether You figure it out and Can do it is unknown.

Currently DA's statement stands, unless you can come up with a way, and thereby prove otherwise.




View user's profile View All Posts By User
neptunium
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 922
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline

Mood: meta stable

[*] posted on 5-12-2014 at 19:00


i thought there was a way to determine the half life of any isotope without standing arround waiting to catch it in the act...with the nuclear constant? based on the nuclear model?
anyway, these are interesting phylosophycal thoughts, i am sure Associalsurvival did not expect his question to go that far..




Http://www.d-radlab.com/
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1  

  Go To Top