Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
I have a science question, I don't know if anyone can help me out.
Lets say you have a container of hydrogen gas and a small amount was released into a room, small enough that it was well below the lower explosive limit (4% H2 in air). Would that hydrogen react with O2 in the air to form water, and if so, how quickly? How much of it would react?
Lets say now that there was a small amount of liquid water in the room. Would any of the released hydrogen freely exchange with hydrogens in the H2O molecules?
I have a science question, I don't know if anyone can help me out.
Lets say you have a container of hydrogen gas and a small amount was released into a room, small enough that it was well below the lower explosive limit (4% H2 in air). Would that hydrogen react with O2 in the air to form water, and if so, how quickly? How much of it would react?
Lets say now that there was a small amount of liquid water in the room. Would any of the released hydrogen freely exchange with hydrogens in the H2O molecules?
Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas will not react at an appreciable rate at room temperature. Hydrogen gas will not undergo acid-base chemistry, which is the source of hydrogen exchange, with liquid water.
so if you had H2 gas, low concentration, the only real way to get it to convert to H2O is to say, have a hydrogen recombiner that uses a catalyst, maybe with the use of a heater as well?
what if you had an electric heater that could go to like, 200C, but not necessarily a catalyst. And you increased flow over the element using a fan. Would that increase the conversion rate of H2 -> H2O ?
so if you had H2 gas, low concentration, the only real way to get it to convert to H2O is to say, have a hydrogen recombiner that uses a catalyst, maybe with the use of a heater as well?
what if you had an electric heater that could go to like, 200C, but not necessarily a catalyst. And you increased flow over the element using a fan. Would that increase the conversion rate of H2 -> H2O ?
with the caveat that I never really liked chemistry much:
I'm relatively sure 200 C isn't going to have a measurable impact on the reactivity even at an ideal 2:1 mix so for all intents and purposes that's basically the same as this gas mixture being in the freezer.
but like, light a candle in the room and that 1000 C flame will make all the hydrogen and oxygen that come into contact with the candle will readily react and result in H2O.
more generally though: to increase the reaction rate, increase the temperature. You don't need a catalyst to make hydrogen and oxygen react - you just use that when you want it them to react very slowly, at low temperatures, at a nice sedate pace so that nothing blows up or catches fire.
Abdhyius on
+2
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
so if you had H2 gas, low concentration, the only real way to get it to convert to H2O is to say, have a hydrogen recombiner that uses a catalyst, maybe with the use of a heater as well?
what if you had an electric heater that could go to like, 200C, but not necessarily a catalyst. And you increased flow over the element using a fan. Would that increase the conversion rate of H2 -> H2O ?
In principle, higher temperatures will result in a faster reaction, but "faster" does not mean "with enough speed to matter".
For a chemical reaction to proceed, the components in the reaction must...
1) ...collide. Bonds can break/form only if the reaction components are in proximity to each other.
2) ...collide in the correct orientation. Bonds can break/form only if the atoms involved are in proximity to each other.
3) ...collide with enough energy. Every reaction has an "energy barrier" that must be overcome.
"Temperature" is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a sample. When we say "the hydrogen gas is 200 degrees C", we are saying the sample has an average kinetic energy of some value. Some particles will have much lower kinetic energy than the average and some will have much higher. Higher temperatures mean particles have more kinetic energy leading to more collisions and, through probability, more collisions in the correct orientation.
Higher temperatures also mean that more molecules have more energy, which means that more molecules should be able to overcome the energy barrier. However, "more" does not mean "more in a meaningful way". I skimmed through some of the PDFs in the passive autocatalytic recombiner Wikipedia page you linked and one of them stated that the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen needs temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C to be spontaneous. The proposed 200 degrees Celsius technically can have particles with the same kinetic energy as what would be the average at 600 degrees Celsius, but it will be a very, very small number.
The advantage of the passive autocatalytic recombiner is that it lowers the energy barrier of the reaction. By providing an alternative pathway for the reaction, it proceeds at a reasonable rate at the average kinetic energy of particles at low (13 degrees Celsius based on one of the PDFs) temperature.
so essentially, if you can't get 600C, you absolutely need that catalyst
yes. As long as the timeframe we're talking about here is a human who wants something to happen - if we were talking the chemistry in, say, an asteroid, then "enough speed to matter" is of course very different since a million years is nothing then
assume the hydrogen is not able to easily escape the room. no ventilation, doors that are relatively well but not perfectly sealed
oh and not very relevant sidenote: the greateast annoyance when designing something using hydrogen is that outside of simplified chemistry problem imaginary land, with hydrogen pretty much everything is "not perfectly sealed"
hydrogen atoms are so small that there's very little that isn't permeable to hydrogen
and hydrogen is to metals as water is to toilet paper. It permeates into metals and cause them to become brittle and crack.
Im just saying if this was the Disceorld this would end with someone setting their house on fire to make water yknow.
well it kind of is safer to make sure the hydrogen is on fire rather than risk it building up until it explodes instead, but I feel like that's the sort of comment that'd get me mentioned in the fire investigation report
I'm asking because I'm trying to determine; if there was a release of pure tritium gas into a room, would it convert to T2O or HTO (tritium oxide) without help. And if it were to convert to T2O / HTO, by what mechanism.
tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.
Al_wat on
0
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
it'd just stay tritium, wouldn't it? it'd be gas until it's saturating the air and it starts condensing?
I have literally no goddamn idea, I didn't go to school to be a science man, I didn't go to school 'tall!
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
I'm asking because I'm trying to determine; if there was a release of pure tritium gas into a room, would it convert to T2O or HTO (tritium oxide) without help. And if it were to convert to T2O / HTO, by what mechanism.
tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.
Not sure what you mean by this - tritium is just a hydrogen isotope, and an unstable one that undergoes radioactive decay at that (unlike deuterium, its smaller brother,; which is stable). I wouldn't really say it's chemically identical to hydrogen-1 because, you know, two neutrons and a half life.
Anyway, no, as others have pointed out, the thermodynamics of 2 x H2 + O2 --> 2 x H2O are such that the reaction does not occur at baseline room temperature and pressure conditions. It requires very high temperature, energy input, or a catalyst.
+1
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
I'm asking because I'm trying to determine; if there was a release of pure tritium gas into a room, would it convert to T2O or HTO (tritium oxide) without help. And if it were to convert to T2O / HTO, by what mechanism.
tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.
Not sure what you mean by this - tritium is just a hydrogen isotope, and an unstable one that undergoes radioactive decay at that (unlike deuterium, its smaller brother,; which is stable). I wouldn't really say it's chemically identical to hydrogen-1 because, you know, two neutrons and a half life.
Anyway, no, as others have pointed out, the thermodynamics of 2 x H2 + O2 --> 2 x H2O are such that the reaction does not occur at baseline room temperature and pressure conditions. It requires very high temperature, energy input, or a catalyst.
It is correct to say that the isotopes of an element will all have the same non-nuclear chemical behavior*. 1H (protium) will undergo the same bond forming/breaking chemical reactions that 2H (deuterium) and 3H (tritium) will undergo. Radioactivity will put the tritium on a timer (half-life about 12 years), but won't change the types of bonds it makes because those are tied to the electrons of an atom. Isotopes of an element have the same electrons.
*There is, as always, fine print. The isotopes of hydrogen will undergo the same chemical reactions, but will do so at different rates. How quickly a bond breaks partially depends on the mass of the atoms involved. Oftentimes, the difference in rate is small because the mass difference between isotopes is also small (compare 16O to 18O). However, in the case of hydrogen where the mass of deuterium is twice that of protium, the mass difference leads to a significant, measurable difference in reaction rate. We exploit this to learn how chemical reaction proceed by strategically swapping 1H for 2H in molecules at key locations to see what, if any, effect on reaction rate results.
Tynnanseldom correct, never unsureRegistered Userregular
If it were fully true that the isotopes of hydrogen were chemically equivalent to protium, then we wouldn't expect deuterium oxide to be harmful. And yet, it is:
(Abstract)
The rare stable isotope of hydrogen, deuterium, has fascinated researchers since its discovery in the 1930s. Subsequent large-scale production of deuterium oxide, commonly known as heavy water, became a starting point for further research. Deuterium exhibits unique physicochemical properties as well as having the strongest kinetic isotope effects among all other elements. Moreover, a broad variety of morphological and physiological changes have been observed in deuterium-treated cells and organisms, including changes in fundamental processes such as cell division or energy metabolism. Even though our understanding of such alterations is still insufficient, it is evident that some of them make growth in a deuterium-enriched environment a challenging task. There seems to be certain species-specific limits to their tolerance to heavy water, where some organisms are unable to grow in heavy water whilst others have no difficulties. Although the effects of deuterium on living organisms are, in general, negative, some of its applications are of great biotechnological potential, as is the case of stable isotope-labelled compounds or deuterated drugs.
+2
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
edited September 2023
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
0
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
The differences do matter when you're seeing a physiological effect, is I guess what I'm trying to emphasize. It doesn't matter to me if you think it's the same, if I can see an observable difference in a living system. You can correct for different rates in your models, but cells and organs aren't models.
Ive always been told that the isotopes of hydrogen have the same chemical properties but slightly different physical and very different nuclear properties.
Physical meaning for example, different boiling points.
A good example of a chemical property would be: all isotopes have the same explosive concentration in air. 4%
Nuclear properties: deuterium is much better at moderating neutrons than protium, and tritium is radioactive.
Al_wat on
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
I did enough synthetic chemistry before and during my PhD to know firsthand that reaction rate absolutely matters in a lot of chemistry applications :P
Also with respect to the toxicity of deuterium: it is only hazardous if you replace a significant proportion of the water in your body with D2O. If you were exposed to non tritiated D2O it isnt hazardous at all. You need to be drinking a lot of it straight for a while for it to be hazardous.
0
Options
BaidolI will hold him offEscape while you canRegistered Userregular
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
The differences do matter when you're seeing a physiological effect, is I guess what I'm trying to emphasize. It doesn't matter to me if you think it's the same, if I can see an observable difference in a living system. You can correct for different rates in your models, but cells and organs aren't models.
Yes, but I don't think that's what the original statement was about. My interpretation of the statement ("tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.") was, on a fundamental chemical basis, do protium and deuterium undergo the same chemical reactions, and the answer is yes. That does not mean they are interchangeable, nor does it mean that there are no consequences to having protium instead of deuterium.
Also with respect to the toxicity of deuterium: it is only hazardous if you replace a significant proportion of the water in your body with D2O. If you were exposed to non tritiated D2O it isnt hazardous at all. You need to be drinking a lot of it straight for a while for it to be hazardous.
Gonna go drink some of the deuterium oxide at work now because of this post, thanks!
Also with respect to the toxicity of deuterium: it is only hazardous if you replace a significant proportion of the water in your body with D2O. If you were exposed to non tritiated D2O it isnt hazardous at all. You need to be drinking a lot of it straight for a while for it to be hazardous.
Gonna go drink some of the deuterium oxide at work now because of this post, thanks!
if it has tritium in it do not!
0
Options
DepressperadoI just wanted to see you laughingin the pizza rainRegistered Userregular
Moreover, a broad variety of morphological and physiological changes have been observed in deuterium-treated cells and organisms, including changes in fundamental processes such as cell division or energy metabolism.
I can see how people back in the day thought radiation would give you superpowers, that one sentence got me like "wait is this Ooze?"
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Wait it doesn't?
Damn I need to change my protein powder mix.
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
None of that has to be due to differences in fundamental chemical reactivity, though. The "kinetic isotope effect" mentioned in that paragraph is the asterisk point in my last post. Organisms expect chemical reactions to occur at a specific rate (whether catalyzed or not). It is absolutely possible, and would be my guess, that the slower proton transfers that result from deuterium oxide instead of water could fuck up all sorts of things. When we're talking about chemical reactivity, we're talking about the electrons around an atom. When we're talking about the single electron in protium and deuterium, there's not much variety there. Being slower at doing something is not the same as doing something different.
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
I did enough synthetic chemistry before and during my PhD to know firsthand that reaction rate absolutely matters in a lot of chemistry applications :P
I learned it from breaking bad, when Walter explains the difference between rust and an explosion.
Starfield reminded me when I used to go onto the NASA archives and find all the photos that were never published on the main site because they weren't topical, just hardware bathed in stark orbital light
For those wondering where these come from, I go to catalog.archives.gov and search for missions by their launch name such as "STS-5"
Posts
Holy shit, that's my starter animal too
Lets say you have a container of hydrogen gas and a small amount was released into a room, small enough that it was well below the lower explosive limit (4% H2 in air). Would that hydrogen react with O2 in the air to form water, and if so, how quickly? How much of it would react?
Lets say now that there was a small amount of liquid water in the room. Would any of the released hydrogen freely exchange with hydrogens in the H2O molecules?
I would expect the hydrogen to escape the room, before any substantial reaction.
Hydrogen gas and oxygen gas will not react at an appreciable rate at room temperature. Hydrogen gas will not undergo acid-base chemistry, which is the source of hydrogen exchange, with liquid water.
like using this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_autocatalytic_recombiner
what if you had an electric heater that could go to like, 200C, but not necessarily a catalyst. And you increased flow over the element using a fan. Would that increase the conversion rate of H2 -> H2O ?
with the caveat that I never really liked chemistry much:
I'm relatively sure 200 C isn't going to have a measurable impact on the reactivity even at an ideal 2:1 mix so for all intents and purposes that's basically the same as this gas mixture being in the freezer.
but like, light a candle in the room and that 1000 C flame will make all the hydrogen and oxygen that come into contact with the candle will readily react and result in H2O.
more generally though: to increase the reaction rate, increase the temperature. You don't need a catalyst to make hydrogen and oxygen react - you just use that when you want it them to react very slowly, at low temperatures, at a nice sedate pace so that nothing blows up or catches fire.
In principle, higher temperatures will result in a faster reaction, but "faster" does not mean "with enough speed to matter".
For a chemical reaction to proceed, the components in the reaction must...
1) ...collide. Bonds can break/form only if the reaction components are in proximity to each other.
2) ...collide in the correct orientation. Bonds can break/form only if the atoms involved are in proximity to each other.
3) ...collide with enough energy. Every reaction has an "energy barrier" that must be overcome.
"Temperature" is a measure of the average kinetic energy of a sample. When we say "the hydrogen gas is 200 degrees C", we are saying the sample has an average kinetic energy of some value. Some particles will have much lower kinetic energy than the average and some will have much higher. Higher temperatures mean particles have more kinetic energy leading to more collisions and, through probability, more collisions in the correct orientation.
Higher temperatures also mean that more molecules have more energy, which means that more molecules should be able to overcome the energy barrier. However, "more" does not mean "more in a meaningful way". I skimmed through some of the PDFs in the passive autocatalytic recombiner Wikipedia page you linked and one of them stated that the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen needs temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C to be spontaneous. The proposed 200 degrees Celsius technically can have particles with the same kinetic energy as what would be the average at 600 degrees Celsius, but it will be a very, very small number.
The advantage of the passive autocatalytic recombiner is that it lowers the energy barrier of the reaction. By providing an alternative pathway for the reaction, it proceeds at a reasonable rate at the average kinetic energy of particles at low (13 degrees Celsius based on one of the PDFs) temperature.
Thermodynamics is a jerk, yes.
yes. As long as the timeframe we're talking about here is a human who wants something to happen - if we were talking the chemistry in, say, an asteroid, then "enough speed to matter" is of course very different since a million years is nothing then
oh and not very relevant sidenote: the greateast annoyance when designing something using hydrogen is that outside of simplified chemistry problem imaginary land, with hydrogen pretty much everything is "not perfectly sealed"
hydrogen atoms are so small that there's very little that isn't permeable to hydrogen
and hydrogen is to metals as water is to toilet paper. It permeates into metals and cause them to become brittle and crack.
I'm just saying if this was the Discworld this would end with someone setting their house on fire to make water yknow.
well it kind of is safer to make sure the hydrogen is on fire rather than risk it building up until it explodes instead, but I feel like that's the sort of comment that'd get me mentioned in the fire investigation report
tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.
I have literally no goddamn idea, I didn't go to school to be a science man, I didn't go to school 'tall!
Not sure what you mean by this - tritium is just a hydrogen isotope, and an unstable one that undergoes radioactive decay at that (unlike deuterium, its smaller brother,; which is stable). I wouldn't really say it's chemically identical to hydrogen-1 because, you know, two neutrons and a half life.
Anyway, no, as others have pointed out, the thermodynamics of 2 x H2 + O2 --> 2 x H2O are such that the reaction does not occur at baseline room temperature and pressure conditions. It requires very high temperature, energy input, or a catalyst.
It is correct to say that the isotopes of an element will all have the same non-nuclear chemical behavior*. 1H (protium) will undergo the same bond forming/breaking chemical reactions that 2H (deuterium) and 3H (tritium) will undergo. Radioactivity will put the tritium on a timer (half-life about 12 years), but won't change the types of bonds it makes because those are tied to the electrons of an atom. Isotopes of an element have the same electrons.
*There is, as always, fine print. The isotopes of hydrogen will undergo the same chemical reactions, but will do so at different rates. How quickly a bond breaks partially depends on the mass of the atoms involved. Oftentimes, the difference in rate is small because the mass difference between isotopes is also small (compare 16O to 18O). However, in the case of hydrogen where the mass of deuterium is twice that of protium, the mass difference leads to a significant, measurable difference in reaction rate. We exploit this to learn how chemical reaction proceed by strategically swapping 1H for 2H in molecules at key locations to see what, if any, effect on reaction rate results.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31352668/
This professional biologist wholly disagrees with this bolded bit.
The professional (organic) chemist does agree, so vOv. Walk up to any chemist and ask "Does deuterium have the same (non-nuclear) chemical properties as protium" and they'll say "Yes, but..." and then have this same conversation with you. Treating deuterium as being equivalent to protium in chemical reactivity, with exception of the kinetic isotope effect, is central to its use as a label and how we investigate reaction mechanisms.
The differences do matter when you're seeing a physiological effect, is I guess what I'm trying to emphasize. It doesn't matter to me if you think it's the same, if I can see an observable difference in a living system. You can correct for different rates in your models, but cells and organs aren't models.
Physical meaning for example, different boiling points.
A good example of a chemical property would be: all isotopes have the same explosive concentration in air. 4%
Nuclear properties: deuterium is much better at moderating neutrons than protium, and tritium is radioactive.
I did enough synthetic chemistry before and during my PhD to know firsthand that reaction rate absolutely matters in a lot of chemistry applications :P
Yes, but I don't think that's what the original statement was about. My interpretation of the statement ("tritium is chemically identical to hydrogen and should act the exact same way.") was, on a fundamental chemical basis, do protium and deuterium undergo the same chemical reactions, and the answer is yes. That does not mean they are interchangeable, nor does it mean that there are no consequences to having protium instead of deuterium.
Gonna go drink some of the deuterium oxide at work now because of this post, thanks!
if it has tritium in it do not!
I can see how people back in the day thought radiation would give you superpowers, that one sentence got me like "wait is this Ooze?"
Damn I need to change my protein powder mix.
I learned it from breaking bad, when Walter explains the difference between rust and an explosion.