RE: neutron flux in space

[rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu (Ron L. Kathren)]

POroduction rates for cosmogenic radionuclides can be found in many widely
available references including a tabulation on page 32 of my own book
"Radioactivity in the Environment".  The book also contains world wide
inventory data for these nuclides as do UNSCEAR reports.

Ron Kathren

]At 08:48 AM 5/7/98 -0500, Fulmer, Philip wrote:
>Scott,
>
>I was enjoying the thread (your humor wasn't wasted); however, I'm now
>more curious about an answer to the original question regarding
>activation.  I suspect that the question wasn't meant to be limited to
>strictly neutron activation but also possibly photoactivation, charged
>particle reactions, spallation, etc., all processes that produce
>radioactive atoms.  Would the total activity caused by these events
>still be overshadowed by amounts as small as check sources?
>
>Philip
>
>__________________________
>Philip C. Fulmer, PhD, CHP 
>Carolina Power & Light Company
>Harris Energy and Environmental Center
>3932 New Hill-Holleman Road
>P. O. Box 327
>New Hill, NC 27562-0327
>philip.fulmer@cplc.com
>(919) 362-3363      
>
>----------
>From: 	Scott D. Kniffin[SMTP:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, May 06, 1998 2:42 PM
>To: 	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: 	Re: neutron flux in space
>
>Hi again,
>
>I grant that neutrons are there, just that in comparison to all the other
>stuff hitting you in space, the neutron term is rather less significant
>than any of the others.  Besides, at 10eV, they're getting soaked up by the
>outter (probably aluminum) skin of your spacecraft and the resultant
>activation product is not around very long in terms of what's coming back
>at earth in hte event of a disaster. Plus there's scattering/reflection and
>the decay products of the activated Al (2.6MeV beta and 1.8MeV gamma) still
>has to go into the spacecraft.  The cosmic rays are much worse in terms of
>what damage they do to electronic components, fortunately these are also
>(except in certain orbits) minimal as well.  
>I hadn't meant to turn this into a mess, I thought I was pointing out a
>humorous glitch (which after further review, what I wrote wasn't as funny
>as it sounded before I had my hot chocolate) in a note reminding us to
>watch what we say.  Sorry for the confusion, I'll slap myself a few times
>in the morning before I reply from now on, I promise. ;)
>
>Scott Kniffin
>
>mailto:Scott.D.Kniffin.1@gsfc.nasa.gov
>RSO, Unisys Corp. @ Lanham, MD
>CHO, Radiation Effects Facility, GSFC, NASA, Greenbelt, MD
>
>The opinions expressed here are my own.  They do not necessarily represent
>the views of Unisys Corporation or NASA.  This information has not been
>reviewed by my employer or supervisor.  
>
>At 13:16 05/06/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Depending on the circumstances this parameter can change dramatically
>since many more neutrons are produced by the very high energy cosmic rays
>(ions) when they interact with matter (e.g., the air containment shell of
>your space vehicle).  The NCRP meeting this year had lots of neat data on
>this topic.
>
><color><param>0000,ffff,ffff</param>Disclaimer:  the above are the
>personal musings of the author, and do not represent any past, present,
>or future position of NIST, the U.S. government, or anyone else who might
>think that they are in a position of authority.
>
></color><color><param>8080,0000,0000</param>Lester Slaback, Jr. 
>[Lester.Slaback@NIST.GOV]
>
>NBSR Health Physics
>
>Center for Neutron Research
>
>NIST
>
>Gaithersburg, MD  20899
>
>301 975-5810</color>
>
>
>
>
>