cuz it just works.
2006-07-19 18:25:36
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chowder 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Most atoms within a molecule are seperated at roughly the same distance apart, regardless of the actual elements the material is made of. That being said, Lead has a much thicker nucleus than most other atoms. Anything bigger, and you'd be getting into radioactive elements (it makes no sense to make a radiation shield with radioactive elements). These larger nucleii provide more area of protection per atom in the material, and therefore provide more radioactive protection overall. However, that does not mean that lead is the ONLY thing that will shield against radiation.
There are four main types of radiation and each one has a more suitable protection material than the others.
Alpha radiation:
A piece of paper will easily stop this type of radiation.
Beta Radiation:
The skin on your body will stop this radiation. Excessive exposeure will cause burns.
Gamma Radiation:
This radiation is from photons, and not particles. UV radiation is a lower-level of gamma radiation, essentially the same thing, just less intense. Lead will stop this radiation, however sufficient lead thickness must be used.
Neutron Radiation:
Lead will not stop this radiation. Tests have shown that 25 ft. of concrete won't even slow it down. Ironically, this radiation will be stopped easily by a glass of water. This is due to the momentum of the particles involved. the Hydrogen in the water, and the neutrons in the radiation.
2006-07-19 19:55:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lead has a few helpful properties that no other substance has all together:
-It's dense enough to block all nuclear radiation and, i believe, almost all electromagnetic radiation (i'm not sure if it blocks really low frequency EM radiation, but thats not dangerous, so it doesn't matter too much for shielding)
-It's plentiful in supply
-It does not become radioactive itself when exposed to radiation (many other materials do become radioactive if exposed long enough to gamma radiation).
2006-07-19 18:37:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by extton 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
somewhat, do not problem about it. wearing a lead vest to fly on an airplane is one step lower than putting a metallic bowl on your head to dam out the alien recommendations administration. that is in basic terms not something you favor to problem about. convinced, the radiation publicity on a airplane is larger than on the floor, even if that is nevertheless so a techniques lower than the dose that ought to even commence to in all likelihood be volatile even to a fetus that you purely do not favor to problem about it. it really is a techniques lower than the dose that infirmaries evaluate possibility-free for pregnant workers to be uncovered to, and there is by no skill been any problems with it. Radiation publicity has been studied somewhat extensively over the years, and the dose it somewhat is doubtlessly volatile to both an grownup and a fetus has been determined somewhat precisely, and the dose you receive on an airplane is about one million,000,000th of the point at which it may commence to be volatile. playstation . i don't recognize the position you heard that lead isn't useful at defensive radiation, yet I assure you it really is.
2016-12-10 12:15:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
lead is a cheap and relatively dense material... dense matter blocks radiation
2006-07-19 18:26:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by underagelying 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
not sure. I think it's because lead is lightweight and flexible enough to be made into wearable apparel (like for radiologists), and works by absorbing the radiation???
2006-07-19 18:26:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by ucd_grad_2005 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
lead is more dense. Thus, radiation (not all) short range waves will not penetrate
2006-07-19 18:26:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by nickless 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Lead is dense, making it effective, and lead is common, making it cost effective.
2006-07-19 18:25:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Nerdly Stud 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
lead is the best for shielding cheap and easy to bend and doesnt need to be very thick
2006-07-19 18:25:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Schmitz 4
·
0⤊
0⤋