[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Alternative isotopes in RTGs?
> Received: from MAILQ by EDU-UTAH-RSO (Mercury 1.13); Tue, 14 Oct 97 10:47:27
> +700
> Return-path: <server@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu by rso.utah.edu (Mercury 1.13) with ESMTP
> ;
> Tue, 14 Oct 97 10:47:26 +700
> Received: (from server@localhost)
> by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA03932;
> Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:36:23 -0500 (CDT)
> Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 11:36:23 -0500 (CDT)
> Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.971014120924.27711C-100000@unixs2.cis.pitt.edu>
> Errors-To: m-woo@uiuc.edu
> Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> From: Bernard L Cohen <blc+@pitt.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Alternative isotopes in RTGs?
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment: RADSAFE Distribution List
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-PMFLAGS: 34078848
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997, Donivan Porterfield, LANL CST-3 wrote:
>
> >
> > Given all the attention to the Pu-238 in the Cassini RTGs
> > I was wondering what other isotopes might have been suitable
> > for this application. Below are those alpha emitters with
> > half-lifes of 10 to 150 years. Presumably beta emitters,
> > despite possibly having a higher energy density (MeV/Z),
> > would not be desirable due to bremsstrahlung.
> >
> > Po- 209 103 a
> > Ac- 227 21.8 a
> > U - 232 72.0 a
> > Pu- 238 87.7 a
> > Cm- 243 28.5 a
> > Cm- 244 18.1 a
> > Cf- 250 13.1 a
> >
> > For example, in retrospect would U-232 have been a less
> > controversial isotope to use in RTGs? This given that this
> > or the others are feasible, e.g. cost of of production and
> > other technical issues such as gamma emmissions or physical
> > properties.
>
> --There is no reason to believe that these would be less dangerous
> than Pu-238
>
U-232 is very rare and would be extremely expensive to produce.
Further, ingrowth of its daughters, particularly Tl-208, would
require serious shielding of the RTG until launch.
Jim Thompson>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| James J. Thompson, Ph.D. | RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT |
| jjthompson@rso.utah.edu | UNIVERSITY OF UTAH |
| (801) 581-6141 (office) | 260 S CENTRAL CAMPUS DR RM 100 |
| (801) 581-4206 (FAX) | SALT LAKE CITY UT 84112-9159 |
| Dept. Home Page: | |
| http://www.rso.utah.edu | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------