Radioactive lantern mantles

  • Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.

Doc

Need to contact Admin...
Nov 29, 2003
2,109
10
Perthshire
There was a thread recently about pressure lanterns of Tilley/Coleman design. I had read that some mantles are made with thorium, and are therefore radioactive.

So I tested some with a geiger counter. :)

My geiger counter is a $12 Russian model and clicks away but has no meter. Background count is about 6 counts per minute.

A fairly new Camping Gaz mantle (white and yellow) showed no radioactivity above background.

The mantle in my gas lamp (unknown age-probably under 5 years/origin unknown) registered about 80 counts per minute.

A fairly old Veritas mantle registered over 160 counts per minute in the packet :eek: . Decided not to take it out of the packet.....

Lots of info on the net. The risks are probably small if you are careful. Don't inhale the fumes when burning off a new mantle. Don't carry mantles in your pocket. Don't eat them. wash hands after using. Keep away from children.

Nevertheless, the Veritas mantle is easily the most radioactive thing in my home.
 

Povarian

Forager
May 24, 2005
204
0
63
High Wycombe, Bucks
Doc said:
Nevertheless, the Veritas mantle is easily the most radioactive thing in my home.
Hmm, In my case, it may well be my Dad's old war time prismatic compass.

Anecdote warning...

I was on a school trip to Transfwyned (sp?) nuclear power station in the 70's. We'd completed a tour of the place, including a walk around a floor marked with coloured panels to show where the control rods were. Finishing up, they showed us the checks for contamination - hands in a counter unit, and waving a counter wand over us head to toe. Of course, when they got to me, compass in pocket, the alarm went off. Never seen so many worried faces, and people moving so fast, on a guided tour since.:bandit:
 

addyb

Native
Jul 2, 2005
1,264
4
39
Vancouver Island, Canada.
I had a Russian watch once, a "Vostok Amphibia" and that thing was a TANK. Mind you, it only lasted 6 months, but I still to this day cannot believe how much of a beating it took. The hands were coated with Tritium, which is a decomposing luminous material with a half life of about 15 years. Anyway, no other watch manufacturers in the world use Tritium, (except for Luminox) because it's slightly radioactive. And so almost all of the major watch manufacturers left use Super Luminova, which is a non radioactive, non decomposing luminous "light battery." Both have their pros and cons, of course.

However, the thought of radioactive mantles scares me!

Adam
 

Doc

Need to contact Admin...
Nov 29, 2003
2,109
10
Perthshire
....yes, it keeps glowing even without paraffin...... :)

I had a tritium watch - an ex RAF Hamilton. The tritium paint crumbled away and jammed it up. Glowrings also use tritium. It is an enclosed beta emitter and very safe. Unless you eat or inhale it, anyway.

Radium painted dials are a different story. I would definitely not wear a radium watch regularly.
 

match

Settler
Sep 29, 2004
707
8
Edinburgh
The point about these being radioactive reminded me of this:

The Radioactive Boy Scout

Young guy who read about how breeder reactors work, then went round camping & antique shops buying gas lamp mantles, old clocks with radium dials etc until he had enough radioactive material to actually build a breeder in his garden shed. He actually had it set up and running before it was discovered and disassembled by the relevant authorities - I belive that the nuclear materials, shed and most of the garden are now encased in concrete somewhere in the Arizona desert! :eek:

All in all a fascinating read...
 
M

Mooney

Guest
the 'legal' background count over here is 50, that is for living in.
to be honest i would wana live somewhere with below 50 'cpm' say 10.
ive heard theres a place in india with 2600 cpm and the people live there fine.
 

Doc

Need to contact Admin...
Nov 29, 2003
2,109
10
Perthshire
Counts per minute depends on the size of the GM tube used. Doses are measured in sieverts. A Sievert is rather a lot of radiation.

I know the background environment radiation dose locally is 0.64 millisieverts per year - I live a few hundred yards from a Rimnet monitoring station. We are also exposed to a bit more radiation from potassium 40 in our bodies.

As you say, in some parts of the world exposure is much greater. In Ramsar, Iran, it is 260 mSv per year.
 

anthonyyy

Settler
Mar 5, 2005
655
6
ireland
Mooney said:
the 'legal' background count over here is 50, that is for living in.
to be honest i would wana live somewhere with below 50 'cpm' say 10.
ive heard theres a place in india with 2600 cpm and the people live there fine.

As far as I know the counts per min from a geiger counter only tell you how much radiation is emmitted from one source relative to another. It is not an absolute value.
 

Toddy

Mod
Mod
Jan 21, 2005
38,992
4,645
S. Lanarkshire
:eek: I've got half a dozen unused ones of these lying in the shed.....I've also got a little jar of the paint somewhere......think the council will recycle it for me? :rolleyes: I can see the headlines now, "Radioactive Vulture!"

Cheers,
Toddy
 

Lithril

Administrator
Admin
Jan 23, 2004
2,590
55
Southampton, UK
Hold your geiger counter up to any of the slightly older safety signs and it'll also go mad, most of the emergency ones had a radioactive element in them.
 

Seagull

Settler
Jul 16, 2004
903
108
Gåskrikki North Lincs
Whoa Ho!
Lithril said:
Hold your geiger counter up to any of the slightly older safety signs and it'll also go mad, most of the emergency ones had a radioactive element in them.

Sounds like the HSE guys are going to have a field-day with this one!

What a party piece! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

Ceeg
 

Emma

Forager
Nov 29, 2004
178
3
Hampshire/Sussex
anthonyyy said:
As far as I know the counts per min from a geiger counter only tell you how much radiation is emmitted from one source relative to another. It is not an absolute value.
It is an absolute value. Otherwise what is it comparing the background count to??

The count is not, however, from only one source - the background count will always be included. Can't keep it out, unless you sit in a thick airtight lead box, and even then you are a source yourself, albeit a minor one.

With regards to HSE doing their head in about their own signs, a few years back, when I was still at primary school, they decided we had to have signs on our low roof, as short adults and some of the taller pupils could whack their head in the roof if they walked (or jumped) into the wall. (Well, OK, the roof overhung the wall a little.) The signs that were put up overhung the roof AND walls, and caused more whacked heads than the roof had... :rolleyes:
 

anthonyyy

Settler
Mar 5, 2005
655
6
ireland
Emma said:
It is an absolute value. Otherwise what is it comparing the background count to??

perhaps I am misusing the word "absolute". As I understand it different geiger counters will give different counts per second under the same conditions. Thus; you might get a background count of, say, 200, and 400 for a particular radioactive source. The figure of 400 only tells you that the sourse is double the background count. If you get a different instrument you might get 50 for background and 100 for the source.
Radiation is measured in "becquerels" one radioactive decay per second.
I am open to correction on this.
 
Jan 13, 2004
434
1
Czech Republic
anthonyyy, i believe the difference is due to the difference in area covered by the end of the geiger tube, as Doc explained in terms of size, like Emma said it is an absolute count.

hope that clarifies.. if i am correct :)
 

anthonyyy

Settler
Mar 5, 2005
655
6
ireland
Thanks Emma and bushtuckerman.
It seems that my use of the word "absolute" was incorrect.
I would like to know if my notion that different GM counters will give different readings is correct. If it were JUST a matter of size it would be easy for the manufactures to give a standardised output reading.
For instance if you have a 12 inch thermometer 50 degrees might be at 6 inches, whereas for a 6 inch one 50 degrees might be at 3 inches. In such a case the manufacturer does the calculations - not the end user.
 

swyn

Life Member
Nov 24, 2004
1,159
227
Eastwards!
I have a friend who used to make geiger counters/instruments for measuring radiation. The way the background is measured for UK units is by a piece of steel/iron cut from the ships of the German battle fleet at Scapa flow. This has far less radiation inside it than modern steel having been under a good depth of water since 1918 and consequently shielded, and as modern stuff has been absorbing all the stuff since Enola Gay and the attoll tests in the 60's there is a measurable difference. I would hazzard a guess that there would be a difference between say an American,Russian and UK manufactured geiger counter as unless they all used the same piece if steel/iron from the same source the measurement would be different.
 

Emma

Forager
Nov 29, 2004
178
3
Hampshire/Sussex
Heh, cool, I didn't know that swyn. :)

They will give different counts partly due to size, partly due to placing, and as swyn says, partly from radiation it emits itself.
Placing matters because it is radioactive particles passing through the tube that it is counting, and because the particle only travels in one direction, a different Geiger counter placed close by will not count it. This means that due to random variations or the radiation, even two GM tubes of exactly the same specs placed right next to each other probably won't show exactly the same count. It is not because of tolerances or whatnot in the production, it isn't because they have different characters or whatever.

The radiation it emits itself will not affect the count that much anyway. I haven't got a clue how much, but I would hazard a guess at not more than a few counts in at least a million or so.

And bigger tubes will have a higher count simply because they have more tube for the particles to travel through. There is no way around it.
An analogy to a thermometer doesn't work because there is no similarity between temperature and radiation - a thermometer tells the temperature because the fluid inside the tube loses or gains heat to or from the surroundings, and shows you what temperature the fluid itself is. A Geiger counter is merely counting the particles that pass through its GM tube.

As I see it (in my far-from-expert opinion) selling GM tubes with software that 'standardises' an output reading will only confuse the issue. It will mean that you would never know the true count, which is precisely what a lot of people need to know.

I'm going to try drawing an analogy.
Imagine you have ten or so buckets full of tennis balls, and two big laundry baskets are next to each other ten metres away. You throw the balls at them, some go in one basket, some go in the other, and some go in neither. Despite the fact that the laundry baskets are exactly the same size, there aren't the same number of balls in each one. Why? Is that because of some manufacturing tolerances?
Say one basket is bigger than the other, this one nearly always has more balls in it. Why?
Why can't the laundry basket manufacturers include some clever software that will tell you a standardised reading?

I've no idea how good an analogy it is, it's been several years since I really looked in to any of this...
 
Jan 15, 2005
851
0
54
wantage
As humans began to work with radioactive materials, it became necessary to develop specific units that expressed what people wanted to know about the radioactive material1 involved. For example, the way tritium affects the human body is very different from the way that, say, plutonium-238 affects the human body. The differences are at the heart of why we need and use three different units for measuring radiation. What one has to realise is the different things that they measure.

There are three fundamental concepts that are important when discussing radiation and its effects on physical objects:

(i) the actual radioactivity involved,
(ii) the amount of energy the radiation imparts on other objects, and
(iii) the question of the biological effects of that radiation, particularly on humans.
These concepts are behind the three units most commonly used to measure radiation. As it turns out, the sport of boxing provides a rather useful analogy for understanding these three concepts. From the point of view of a boxer facing a tough opponent, the three concepts of radiation mentioned above could be thought of as:

(i) how many punches are being thrown,
(ii) how powerful the punches are, as in a jab versus an uppercut, and
(iii) how much the punches actually hurt when they land.
The Three Units

The three units that measure the three concepts mentioned above are2:

The becquerel (ultimately after French nuclear physicist Atoine Henri Becquerel who shared a 1903 Nobel Prize in nuclear physics).
The gray (after British radiobiologist Louis Harold Gray).
The sievert (after Swedish radiologist Rolf Maximilian Sievert).

The Becquerel

The becquerel (Bq) is the simplest unit to understand of the three. It is also perhaps the most misleading (of the three) for answering the question, 'Will this hurt me?' A becquerel is simply a measure of the number of disintegrations per second a radionuclide undergoes. Thus, a becquerel has base units identical to that of frequency, or 1/s. It is important to notice that the Bq does not measure energy, and does not differentiate between ionising radiation and non-ionising radiation (refer again to the radioactivity article for what this means). Frequently the 'amount of radiation' is expressed simply by referring to the overall activity of 'whatever-the-heck radioactive stuff' is present. It is in such cases that the unit becquerel is most commonly used. How useful this is depends on what the observer wants to know. Should anyone wish to state how much of any radioactive decay is present, independent on what type of material or what type of decay is present, the becquerel is the correct unit to use3.

If we return to the boxing analogy, a becquerel would just be a measure of how many punches are thrown without regard to whether they are roundhouses, hooks, jabs, or even if they connect at all. They also say nothing about how much the punches hurt, once landed. For these answers, we need more units.

The Gray

Frequently, what people really want to know about radiation is how much harm it will do. Careful reading of the above will show that becquerels are unhelpful for measuring the effects of radiation and radioactive materials on various physical objects. The amount of energy absorbed by a physical object due to radiation is the ultimate source of all the damage. However, not all of these radioactive disintegrations are going to impart the same amount of energy on the object, or even be absorbed at all (this is a slight over-simplification for the purpose of illustration). Thus, measuring how much energy is actually imparted by the radiation is a good indication of how much damage can be inflicted. The unit gray (Gy) is used to express the energy absorbed from a dose of radiation. A gray has base units of J/kg and expresses the amount of absorbed energy per unit of mass of the affected system. The unit Gy is most commonly seen expressing a dose received from large amounts of neutron and gamma radiation, (though it can and will be used for expressing doses from beta and alpha radiation as well), such as what someone or something might receive from a certain type of nuclear accident or due to someone's or something's proximity to a nuclear explosion4.

Using our hapless boxer again, a gray would be analogous to a unit that measures whether the punch is a strong uppercut or just a little jab. However, the gray wouldn't show the cumulative effect of something like 100 jabs to the exact same spot on the cheekbone versus one hard punch to the solar plexus. We need one more unit to express this.

The Sievert

The way that wonderful and complex system known as the human body is affected by radiation is expressed using yet another unit. Being people, we are naturally very interested in protecting our bodies from the harmful effects of radiation. If we aren't subjected to a massive radiation flux (for which the Gy unit would apply), the long-term effects of radiation that can seriously and drastically effect the healthy balance of our bodies is what we're more interested in. Our skins, it turns out, are very good at protecting us from the most significant source of radiation that we are likely to experience in our lifetimes - our Sun. However, our innards are not so protected if something radioactive does get inside us. Problems can occur when we ingest, inhale, absorb through the skin, or otherwise take internally any sort of radionuclide, simply because our bodies haven't developed defences against them. In order to take all of these factors into account, a third unit is used, called the sievert (Sv).

A sievert is a derived unit that attempts to express an equivalence of absorbed dosage taking into account biological harm. The official definition of the unit Sv goes like this:

A unit of ionising radiation absorbed dose equivalent obtained as a product of the absorbed dose measure in grays and a dimensionless factor, stipulated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and indicating the biological effectiveness of the radiation.
The Sv is therefore a measurement of dose equivalent, and has the same base units as the Gy (that is, J/kg). It is important to understand the difference between the Gy and the Sv. While both units express the direct effects of radionuclide decay on other masses, the Sv is designed to express the effects of specific radionuclides on some of the more critical body organs and/or the body as a whole over a relatively longer period of time than those situations where the Gy is used. The 'dimensionless factor' mentioned above is also known as a 'Quality Factor' (Q), which takes into account the fact that different types of radiation have different energies associated with them. How the Q is determined is complicated, and has a lot to do with the size and speed of the 'radiation' or 'particles' (and thus their momentum), as well as how they interact with other atoms and molecules on the atomic and subatomic levels. To make matters even more complex, the way various organs respond to and heal themselves after the harmful effects of these various types of radiation needs to be taken into account. Furthermore, we haven't mentioned the fact that all people are not alike, and other factors such as age and general good health can have a huge effect on how the body responds to harmful radiation. This is an extremely complicated and difficult subject to tackle, so the approach taken by regulators across the world has been to err on the side of conservatism and place factors that are more likely to over-estimate the effects of a given amount of inhaled/ingested radionuclide. These risk factors are determined by various government oversight organisations and are continually being revised and debated and revised again as we learn more about the harmful effects of radiation on the human body.

If we return once more to our hero, the boxer bravely facing down his tough opponent, the Sv would illustrate that he'd been hit by an array of punches, some of them jabs that did little damage by themselves but maybe set him up for a gasping punch to the stomach, followed by a jarring uppercut that in turn sent him reeling where a final roundhouse was landed unchecked right against the jaw. Assuming this didn't put him out for the count, so to speak, a Sv would even be useful in determining the likelihood that this poor fellow might suffer some long-term damage as a result of this pummelling. In short, a Sv is the most useful but complicated and subjective unit for measuring radiation effects on people. Because of this, the Sv is most frequently involved in expressing the effects of nuclear accidents such as the Chernobyl disaster, as well as in performing safety and risk analyses for both the nuclear power industry and in other industrial safety issues involving the use of radioactive material, such as medical, military, and energy research.

Converting and Using Other Units

Of course, Sv, Gy, and Bq are all SI units. The US still uses older versions of the three SI units discussed above. These are, respectively, rem (for Roentgen Equivalent in Man), rad (often claimed to be an acronym for Radiation Absorbed Dose, but actually originated as just a made-up word), and the curie (Ci) or sometimes rutherford (rd) - both those last two are measures of disintegrations/s like the becquerel, but in more convenient orders of magnitude. For the sake of reference, a rem is equal to 1/100th of a Sv - or to put it the other way, 1 Sv = 100 rem. Likewise, a rad = 1/100th of a Gy, or 1 Gy = 100 rad. For converting between Gy and Sv (or between rad and rem), it depends on the type of radiation and sometimes the energy of the radiation involved. For a rough idea, in the case of gamma/x-ray radiation and beta (electrons and positrons), 1 Gy = 1 Sv (and 1 rad = 1 rem). For neutrons and alpha particles, a 'quality factor' (Q) is used (see above discussion about the sievert), which varies from 20 (the generally accepted number for alphas) down to a range of 3 to 20 (for neutrons), depending on which standard one abides by (as discussed in the 'Who makes up all this stuff' heading below).

Another unit that one may encounter in some applications is the roentgen (R), which measures the energy of radiation in terms of ionisation, and has base units of electric charge per unit mass, or coulombs/kg. The roentgen can be converted to the very similar gray or rad for certain types of radiation, namely gamma and x-ray radiation (strictly speaking, gamma and x-ray are the same type, comprising high energy photons). Finally, there's also the electronvolt (eV), which measures the energy associated with a speeding particle of radiation. It should be noted that while the eV is a very common unit of energy used by scientists and engineers for measuring elemental and subatomic particles involved in radiation, prefixes indicating higher orders of magnitude are much more frequently used, like the keV and MeV, particularly amongst those involved in such matters professionally.

The activity that a becquerel measures is closely related to another commonly used 'measurement' of radioactivity, known as the half-life. A half-life is simply the time it takes for half of a radionuclide to decay into something else. Since the half-life has the base units of time and the becquerel has base units of 1/time, the two (activity and half-life) are in fact inversely proportional. This means that something with a shorter half-life would have a higher specific activity than something with a longer half-life, indicating that something that sticks around for millions of years isn't very 'radioactive' at all, and vice versa. This is yet another reason for having all of these other units to express the effects of radiation outside of just the becquerel.

Google is a friend indeed... ;)
 

anthonyyy

Settler
Mar 5, 2005
655
6
ireland
Emma said:
Heh, cool, I didn't know that swyn. :)



I'm going to try drawing an analogy.
Imagine you have ten or so buckets full of tennis balls, and two big laundry baskets are next to each other ten metres away. You throw the balls at them, some go in one basket, some go in the other, and some go in neither. Despite the fact that the laundry baskets are exactly the same size, there aren't the same number of balls in each one. Why? Is that because of some manufacturing tolerances?
Say one basket is bigger than the other, this one nearly always has more balls in it. Why?
Why can't the laundry basket manufacturers include some clever software that will tell you a standardised reading?

I've no idea how good an analogy it is, it's been several years since I really looked in to any of this...

Thank god for 24 hour shopping. I'm off to Tesco now to get some laundry baskets and tennis balls will post the results
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE