Molecular weight and mole concept
This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!
See the attachment.
The supply of uranium in the United States (and the rest of the world) is large, but not limitless. By failing to reprocess spend nuclear fuel, we are discarding a potential source of energy that some European countries are presently tapping. Is the current American practice justified? Why is it different from the European practice? List arguments on both sides of this issue and then take a stand.
Isaac Asimov pointed out in one of his many books that a human contains approximately 3.0 X 10 to the 26th power carbon atoms, of which 3.5 X 10 to the 14th power are radioactive carbon -14 atoms. With each breath you inhale about three and a half million (3.5 X 10 to the 6th power) C-14 atoms.
Assume that Isaac Asimov's figures are correct, and that 3.5 X 10 to the 14th power of the 3.0 X 10 to the 26th power carbon atoms in your body are radioactive. Calculate the fraction of carbon atoms that are radioactive carbon-14.
This question just has to be a couple paragraphs or so (not very long):
The ramifications of adopting a specific model are both biological and economical. The more stringent linear dose model requires stricter limits on workers' acceptable radiation dose limit than the lower dose model. By using the linear model, are we being "better safe than sorry" or are we wasting a lot of money protecting ourselves from an emotional issue without looking at the science behind it?
As a nuclear medicine technician who must operate under the stricter federal limits for radiation safety at a hospital, write a letter to an interested friend giving your position on this issue and the reasons for it.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com May 24, 2023, 1:13 pm ad1c9bdddf
See the attached file.
7.15: The supply of uranium in the United States (and the rest of the world) is large, but not limitless. By failing to reprocess spend nuclear fuel, we are discarding a potential source of energy that some European countries are presently tapping. Is the current American practice justified? Why is it different from the European practice? List arguments on both sides of this issue and then take a stand.
Solution 7.15: The reprocessing of spent fuel often causes great concerns about the workings of the nuclear industry. United States is discarding this potential source of energy as it concerns with these issues:
1. Reprocessing is the only way to produce plutonium
2. Reprocessing is responsible for most of the sea and atmospheric
radioactive pollution through its discharges
3. Reprocessing creates vast quantities of radioactive wastes - much
lethal for tens of thousands of years
4. Reprocessing is responsible for the most dangerous nuclear transports
5. There are increased levels of childhood leukaemia around reprocessing plants
There are three main reasons given for reprocessing: Reprocessing is the only way of acquiring plutonium for nuclear weapons; Reprocessing recovers, or recycles, unused plutonium and/or uranium which can then be used again for fresh fuel; Reprocessing is sensible management of spent fuel making waste storage easier by separating out materials which can be differently, or separately stored/disposed.
The negative effects of ...
The solution determines the molecular weight and mole concept.