<span>All metals have similar properties BUT, there can be wide variations in melting point, boiling point, density, electrical conductivity and physical strength.<span>To explain the physical properties of metals like iron or sodium we need a more sophisticated picture than a simple particle model of atoms all lined up in close packed rows and layers, though this picture is correctly described as another example of a giant lattice held together by metallic bonding.</span><span>A giant metallic lattice – the <span>crystal lattice of metals consists of ions (NOT atoms) </span>surrounded by a 'sea of electrons' that form the giant lattice (2D diagram above right).</span><span>The outer electrons (–) from the original metal atoms are free to move around between the positive metal ions formed (+).</span><span>These 'free' or 'delocalised' electrons from the outer shell of the metal atoms are the 'electronic glue' holding the particles together.</span><span>There is a strong electrical force of attraction between these <span>free electrons </span>(mobile electrons or 'sea' of delocalised electrons)<span> (–)</span> and the 'immobile' positive metal ions (+) that form the giant lattice and this is the metallic bond. The attractive force acts in all directions.</span><span>Metallic bonding is not directional like covalent bonding, it is like ionic bonding in the sense that the force of attraction between the positive metal ions and the mobile electrons acts in every direction about the fixed (immobile) metal ions of the metal crystal lattice, but in ionic lattices none of the ions are mobile. a big difference between a metal bond and an ionic bond.</span><span>Metals can become weakened when repeatedly stressed and strained.<span><span>This can lead to faults developing in the metal structure called 'metal fatigue' or 'stress fractures'.</span><span>If the metal fatigue is significant it can lead to the collapse of a metal structure.</span></span></span></span>
(1) False, lots of energy is actually produced from nuclear fuel, if we didn't get much then we probably wouldn't use it
(2) False, its burning coal that contributes to acid rain, since it contains sulfur
(3) False again, we can control the reaction with aptly named control rods, which are typically made of boron, to absorb some of the neutrons flying around in the chain reaction
(4) True, radioactive waste is very difficult to dispose of, and is also very dangerous. Sources of radiation can remain so for millions of years
Answer: option <span>D Chemical reaction rates vary with the conditions of the reaction, but nuclear decay rates do not.
Justification:
1) The rate of chemical reactions are affected by: concentration of the reactants, state of the reactants, temperature, and presence of catalizers. So the first part of the statement is true.
2) Nuclear decay rates are constant. The decay depends on the nature of the element but not the conditions. That is why dating fossils with radiactive isotopes is possible. So, the second part of the statement is true.
</span>
Specificity. It’s really loose to say that something is fast, since speed can be scalarly linked and relative. I could say that both a car on the highway is fast, but so is the speed of light. The actual speed of something helps to do away with the arbitrary nature of using “fast” and “slow”; however, we’re still at step one of the person who is receiving the information is unfamiliar with the scale that the actual speed is defined in.
