Hi Engineer, it seems you have a problem with terminology and the reasons for it.
I thought I did that in the previous post where K40 converts to A40 through irradiation done in a nuclear reactor located on the earth.
Which does not change the half-life of either element\isotope, so no you did not show this.
You might not call it "nuclear decay" per se ...
The reason no educated informed honest person would not call it "nuclear decay" is because this does not match the definition of "nuclear decay" used in science.
If you are going to mix definition, all you accomplish is confusion, not clarity, and it certainly does not lead to credence in your argument that you don't know or use the proper terms in the way they are used in science.
Now we get to see if you can acknowledge making an error, or if you try to gloss over it or ignore it.
... but the end result is the same.
And the reason we KNOW your misuse of "radioactive decay" is not correct is because the results are
NOT the same. As noted in
Message 27:
quote:
You are confusing nuclear reactions with radioactive decay. These are independent of each other.
Nuclear fission - Wikipedia
235U + N → 236U → 92Kr + 141Ba + 3N
versus
Decay chain - Wikipedia
235U + 7.04x10^8 years on average → 231TH + α
Not the same
Not the same reaction, not the same result, not even close.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : .
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •