The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:01 PM
Ranchoth Ranchoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Gold, versus Lead, as a radiation shield?

Not so odd a question, this time...how would Gold compare to Lead, if used as a radiation shield? Would it offer more protection for it's weight? Or less? Would it not work at all?



Ranchoth
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-11-2004, 08:40 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth
Not so odd a question, this time...how would Gold compare to Lead, if used as a radiation shield? Would it offer more protection for it's weight? Or less? Would it not work at all?
It's pretty much the same. Lead is slightly more effective (more stopping power for the same weight), but the difference is only about 1%.

I can't think of any reason to use gold for radiation shielding, considering the high price. Besides lead, the only other material I've seen used is tungsten. It's useful when the shield needs to be mechanically strong.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2004, 09:37 AM
toadspittle toadspittle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Toadspittle Hill
Posts: 6,071
Isn't gold foil used for radiation shielding on spacecraft?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2004, 09:42 AM
AndrewL AndrewL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
How effective would a large tank of liquid mercury be as a radiation shield?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2004, 10:23 AM
curly chick curly chick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewL
How effective would a large tank of liquid mercury be as a radiation shield?
Surely that would depend on what the tank was made of
If the tank wasn't resistant, then the mercury would be all over the floor at the first hint of radiation.
If the tank was made of something resistant, then why would you need the mercury?
__________________
NADS - A girl's best friend
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2004, 10:33 AM
toadspittle toadspittle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Toadspittle Hill
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewL
How effective would a large tank of liquid mercury be as a radiation shield?
A large mass of ANYTHING is generally a good radiation shield. Piled-up dirt--or plain water--are both good radiation shields. The problem for engineers is finding something that will stop particles and rays that is still small. (i.e., the lead vest you wear at the dentist's office during X-rays)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2004, 10:37 AM
toadspittle toadspittle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Toadspittle Hill
Posts: 6,071
Quote:
The rocket engines of American space shuttles are lined with gold- brazing alloys to reflect heat, and the lunar modules of the Apollo programme that put men on the moon were shrouded with gold foil acting as a radiation shield.
http://www.gold.org/discover/knowled...dustrial_uses/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-12-2004, 10:49 AM
toadspittle toadspittle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Toadspittle Hill
Posts: 6,071
As a footnote, it appears that gold's radiation-shielding abilities are due to its high reflectivity--not necessarily to the sort of absorption abilities that a nice big slab of lead possesses.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-12-2004, 11:09 AM
robby robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 4,485
What kind of radiation are you concerned about? As you are comparing gold to lead, you are probably talking about electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray or gamma range.

If you are trying to shield a nuclear reactor, not only are you concerned with gammas, but you also need to shield against neutrons. In this case, the best shielding is a material containing hydrogen, such as plastic or water. Actual reactors use all of the above (lead, plastic, and water).

Quote:
Originally Posted by curly chick
Surely that would depend on what the tank was made of
If the tank wasn't resistant, then the mercury would be all over the floor at the first hint of radiation.
If the tank was made of something resistant, then why would you need the mercury?
What do you mean by "resistant?" Materials don't disintegrate at the "first hint of radiation."
__________________
"I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying." --Woody Allen
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-12-2004, 07:49 PM
swansont swansont is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby
What kind of radiation are you concerned about? As you are comparing gold to lead, you are probably talking about electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray or gamma range.

If you are trying to shield a nuclear reactor, not only are you concerned with gammas, but you also need to shield against neutrons. In this case, the best shielding is a material containing hydrogen, such as plastic or water. Actual reactors use all of the above (lead, plastic, and water).
Boron-10 is often added to some of the materials, as it has a significant neutron absorption cross-section.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-12-2004, 11:07 PM
Carnac the Magnificent! Carnac the Magnificent! is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by toadspittle
A large mass of ANYTHING is generally a good radiation shield. Piled-up dirt--or plain water--are both good radiation shields. The problem for engineers is finding something that will stop particles and rays that is still small. (i.e., the lead vest you wear at the dentist's office during X-rays)
IIRC, cosmic radiation cuts through anything like it wasn't there.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-13-2004, 12:34 AM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
My above post refers to gamma rays, sorry I forgot to mention that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toadspittle
A large mass of ANYTHING is generally a good radiation shield. Piled-up dirt--or plain water--are both good radiation shields.
In X-rays there is quite a bit of difference. At 60-100 keV energy range (typical for medical and security equipment), lead is about 50 times more effective than the same mass of water. Gold is about 90% as efficient as lead in this energy range. Mercury is somewhere between gold and lead.

You can find the exact number on the NIST XCOM database. It gives you the mass attenuation coefficient. X-ray transmission is exp(- u d), where u is the mass attenuation coefficient and d is the density of the material, in grams per square centimeter.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-13-2004, 02:07 AM
Ranchoth Ranchoth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby
What kind of radiation are you concerned about? As you are comparing gold to lead, you are probably talking about electromagnetic radiation in the X-ray or gamma range.
Mostly Alpha radiation. (I think) It'd be as shielding for a piece of Highly Enriched Uranium, about 90% U-235.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-13-2004, 07:29 AM
Shalmanese Shalmanese is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 6,011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth
Mostly Alpha radiation. (I think) It'd be as shielding for a piece of Highly Enriched Uranium, about 90% U-235.
Alpha radiation can be shielded with a piece of paper.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.