1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
jasenka [17]
3 years ago
11

Why does borax turn fire green

Chemistry
1 answer:
g100num [7]3 years ago
4 0
There is a certain chemical
You might be interested in
Increased use of incineration is sometimes advocated as a safe way to dispose of chemical waste. But opponents of incineration p
pochemuha

Answer:

Option A is correct.

At the two incinerators at which leaks were reported, staff had had only cursory training on the proper procedures for incinerating chemical waste.

Explanation:

The main aim of the argument presented is to talk down the use of burning by incinerators method to dispose chemical waste. The argument presents great points in that there were 40 incidents at two existing commissioned incinerators in the last year where unexpected releases of dangerous chemical agents happened.

So, basically, the argument is all about how the high frequency of the unsuspected release of dangerous chemical agents should discourage this method of chemical waste disposal.

The argument then concluded that if more chemical waste are disposed using the burning by incinerator method, there will be more unsuspected release of dangerous chemicals.

We are then required to find the statement that most weakens the conclusion that there will be more toxic releases if more chemical waste are burned.

Analysing the Statements one by one

Statement A

This statement provides a possible reason for this high frequency of dangerous chemical releases. It states that the staff haven't been properly trained. So, this means that properly training the staff should most likely lead to lesser cases of toxic releases into the environment.

This is the statement that most weakens the conclusion.

Statement B

The conclusion wasn't about the incinerator method being the safest method. It was about whether increased incineration would lead to more toxic relaeses. So, this doesn't affect the conclusion.

Statement C

This statement says that incineration can be increased without building new incinerators by tapping into unused capacity at the old incinerators. Also doesn't affect rhe conclusion whether increased use of incineration will lead to more toxic leaks.

Statement D

This statement strengthens the argument; which is the opposite of what we're aiming to achieve.

Statement E

This statement hints that the toxic leaks do not have that much of a harmful effect because the toxic releases do not go beyond the property of the incinerator. This also doesnt tackle the conclusion about the frequency of leaks, it only addresses how not harmful the toxic leaks can be.

Hope this Helps!!!

5 0
3 years ago
Need help with these two, solve only the ones you can though :D
ad-work [718]

Answer: 27 is A and 28 is C.

Explanation: I’ll explain 28 but not 27 because that’s just definitions.

In CuSO4 there is a Cu, an S, and 4 O molecules. Add them up you get 6.

7 0
2 years ago
The rate constant for this second‑order reaction is 0.190 M − 1 ⋅ s − 1 0.190 M−1⋅s−1 at 300 ∘ C. 300 ∘C. A ⟶ products A⟶product
Mamont248 [21]

Answer:

9.1 seconds

Explanation:

Given that for a second order reaction

1/[A]t = kt + 1/[A]o

Where [A]t= concentration at time = t= 0.340M

[A]o= initial concentration = 0.820M

k= rate constant for the reaction=0.190m-1s-1

t= time taken for the reaction (the unknown)

Hence;

(0.340)^-1 = 0.190×t + (0.820)^-1

t= (0.340)^-1 - (0.820)^-1/0.190

t= 9.1 seconds

Hence the time taken for the concentration to decrease from 0.840M to 0.340M is 9.1 seconds.

5 0
3 years ago
What do you think happens to the matter in a food sample as it is burned?
Alika [10]

Burning and other changes in matter do not destroy matter. The mass of matter is always the same before and after the changes occur. The law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed

6 0
3 years ago
What is the result of two materials
Mandarinka [93]

Answer:

D

Explanation:

Friction plays an important part in many everyday processes. For instance, when two objects rub together, friction causes some of the energy of motion to be converted into heat.

3 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • What are the three different types of selective breeding
    10·1 answer
  • Why aren't sharks extinct?
    12·2 answers
  • A method used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for determining the concentration of ozone in air is to pass the
    15·1 answer
  • Identify which of the bonds in calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, are ionic and which are covalent.
    8·2 answers
  • Aqueous acetic acid is neutralized by aqueous potassium hydroxide. True or False
    14·2 answers
  • Show bond formation in magnesium chloride​
    12·1 answer
  • Which of the following is an example of erosion?
    7·2 answers
  • What is the change in temperature when 75 grams of water releases -2657 J of energy? The specific heat of water is 4.18 J/g°C
    11·1 answer
  • Which is a description of objects found in abundance between Mars and<br> Jupiter?
    14·1 answer
  • 5. A football field is about 100 meters long. If it takes a person 20 seconds to run its length, how fast (what speed) were they
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!