Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: radshield.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to radshield.com.

Comments · 6

  1. X-Ray backscatter blocking clothing by Uninvited+Guest · · Score: 1 · on "No Scan, No Fly" At Heathrow and Manchester

    Back in 2002, Slashdot reported on Demron, a lightweight fabric that blocks radiation as well as lead. It's $600 for a medical apron that would effectively cover the torso, but worthwhile for some, perhaps. Such clothing might even become popular and reasonably priced if, say, it was designed to include a message or image viewable only on an X-Ray backscatter scanner.

  2. Re:This requires not storing in insulators? by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative · on Halving Half Lives

    You do not have to use lead for all gamma. Just the high energy. IIRC, similar material is used on the genesis module to lower the amount of radiation that will be affecting it.

  3. Re:Never give up, never surrender! by WindBourne · · Score: 1 · on NASA Policy Includes Mars, Moon Missions

    Welcome to the 21st century. And from the company itself.

  4. Re:Use U-235 by cheesybagel · · Score: 1 · on Fuel Cells for Laptop Computers

    Regarding light rad shielding, have you noticed this?

  5. DEMRON by zentinal · · Score: 4, Informative · on Hotel Tycoon Pushes Inflatable Space Stations

    I believe that you're referring to RST's (Radiation Shield Technology) product Demron. It is not a film, it is a fabric, not quite the film that you referred to, but the closest I could find.

  6. This is bullshit and I can PROVE it. by Peter+T+Ermit · · Score: 4, Informative · on Lightweight Radiation-proof Fabric?
    I'm not even going to talk about the ludicrous "science" behind the fabric, and I'm not going to talk about how it tends to be heavy nuclei, not electrons, that stops ionizing radiation. Even without using those arguments, I can still show that they're full of shit.

    Check out their "test results." (PDF file) Go to page 3 to see the blocking power of their fabric.

    Error #1: There is no such unit as a Kv. They mean KeV, as in Po-210 emits an alpha particle with 5,300 KeV of energy. But this is minor.

    Error #2: X-rays and gamma rays are both photons; they're only distinguished by their energies. But the X-ray results and gamma ray results (which overlap in energy, which, in itself, makes no sense) contradict each other. For example, why does the fabric block only 52% of 60KeV gamma rays, but 82% and 72% of 50 and 70KeV X-rays respectively? Makes no sense, but this is nothing compared to...

    Error #3: The real killer, and what makes me suspect this is fraud, rather than mere incompetence. They use 0.5 mm of lead as the comparison for their gamma emitter tests. The radiation-absorbing properties of lead are well known, and easily accessible in handy-dandy tables. For example, the half-value layer (the amount of material needed to block 50% of incoming radiation) for a Co-57 source is 0.15 mm of lead (ref here ), so 0.5 mm of lead should block more than 90% of the radiation, not just 52%. Proof positive that they're full of shit.

    Fuck them, and fuck New Scientist. (Pardon my French.)