The Effects of Radiation on Lead: Examining the Tsar Bomb

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the effects of radiation on lead, particularly in the context of the Tsar Bomb's design choices. Participants explore the implications of using lead versus uranium in nuclear weapons, the interactions of radiation with lead, and the potential changes in lead's isotopes due to neutron absorption.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the Tsar Bomb used lead casings to avoid excessive fallout associated with uranium, which would have resulted in faster fusion.
  • One participant argues that lead is effective at absorbing gamma rays through mechanisms like the photoelectric effect and Compton scattering, suggesting that it does not create new elements through these interactions.
  • Another participant mentions that lead nuclei can absorb neutrons, potentially changing their isotopes, with some leading to radioactive isotopes that decay to bismuth.
  • Concerns are raised about the effectiveness of lead as a shielding material, particularly in contexts outside of nuclear weapons, where significant irradiation is less likely to occur.
  • Participants discuss the use of aluminum in vacuum chamber designs for nuclear physics experiments, highlighting its lower probability of neutron capture compared to steel, which can produce undesirable radioactive isotopes.
  • There is a mention of the activation chains of aluminum versus iron, with aluminum being less problematic in terms of producing long-lived radioactive isotopes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of lead as a shielding material and its potential to become radioactive. While some agree on its utility in specific contexts, others question its overall suitability compared to alternatives like aluminum.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the discussion is limited by the specific contexts of nuclear weapons and laboratory settings, and there are unresolved questions about the long-term effects of radiation on lead and the implications for its use in shielding.

Sean Conley
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've read that the Tsar Bomb used a lead casing for the second and third stages of the bomb instead of a uranium casing. A uranium casing would have resulted in fast fusion but would have created too much fallout. Typical Hydrogen bombs use uranium casings. A uranium casing would have indeed resulted in fast fusion but would have created too much fallout therefore the soviets chose to use lead instead.

My question is, what happens to lead after it has absorbed so much radiation? Does it change and become another element?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not sure if that's what applied on nukes...but, lead is a good absorbing matterial for gamma rays.
The gammas are either absorbed (photoelectric effect) or scatter off (compton effect) the electrons. So the gamma rays mainly interact with the lead's electrons and not nucleus,so they don't create other elements.
Lead has a relatively large attenuation (or absorption) parameter \mu which suppresses/brings down the intensity of radiation I_0 exponentially with distance:

I(r) = I_0 e^{-\mu r}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sean Conley
The lead nuclei will absorb some of the neutrons that get emitted, and change their isotope. Some neutrons convert stable isotopes to other stable isotopes, but some produce radioactive isotopes that decay afterwards (mainly to bismuth). Still much better than uranium.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sean Conley
A good choice for what? For simulating additional mass of the bomb and absorbing gamma rays, it is not bad (everything more dense is much more expensive).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sean Conley
Thank you for your responses guys, it's much appreciated. I read that Uranium was the initial choice for the Soviets for the simple fact that it would have resulted in fast fusion, thus increasing the yield of the bomb to somewhere around 80 MT. Their final choice of using lead instead brought the actual yield to about 50 MT. I couldn't help but think the nuclei would absorb some of the radiation, which made me wonder what would happen to the lead atoms at that point. Mfb, your explanation answered this. I can't help but wonder if the lead shielding used in radioactive laboratories eventually becomes spent and less effective. Your explanation makes believe the answer would be yes.
 
Outside of nuclear weapons and reactors, you never get enough irradiation to change a significant fraction of your material.
 
mfb said:
Outside of nuclear weapons and reactors, you never get enough irradiation to change a significant fraction of your material.

Further, the places you find lead shielding in most nuclear labs is for creating "low background environments" for sensitive gamma-counting experiments, where the amount of radiation is very small. So the possibility of activating the lead enough to be significant is even lower.

Now, there are situations where you do worry about activating your material - in vacuum chamber design. You're never going to "change a significant fraction of your material", but you don't need to do much to make something radioactive, and in nuclear experiments, you tend to get a fair amount of neutrons (not a lot, but enough to worry about).

So to deal with this, in general, vacuum chambers for nuclear physics experiments are made from aluminium rather than stainless steel, as aluminium has a smaller probability of neutron capture than steel.
 
In addition to the lower cross-section, aluminium has nice (non-)activation chains. Natural aluminium is 27Al, if it catches a neutron the 28Al quickly (minutes) decays to 28Si which is stable even if it captures one or two additional neutrons.

Natural iron has about 5% 54Fe, if it catches a neutron to become 55Fe it has a half-life of 2.7 years. Too long to wait, too short to ignore. A small fraction of 59Fe with a half-life of 44 days does not help either. And steel has tons of other elements in it, some of them produce other nasty isotopes when activated.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: e.bar.goum

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K