Thread: Gamma ray bursts (and their damage to Terra firma)

Greetings, good people!

I have some questions regarding gamma ray bursts that no one seems to be able to answer directly, and I hope that someone here will be able to provide solid answers.

The topic is, as you've probably already seen, gamma ray bursts. If we imagine that a moderately powerful burst hit the Earth, killing most humans (but not all), and severely damaging the ozone layer, what would happen to human-made objects? Would gamma radiation destroy buildings, or leave them unharmed?

I think we can safely assume that a burst would set off a chain of fires and explosions in electric systems, but would materials like wood and brick be damaged at all by the blast itself?

I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Originally Posted by Borealis

Greetings, good people!

I have some questions regarding gamma ray bursts that no one seems to be able to answer directly, and I hope that someone here will be able to provide solid answers.

The topic is, as you've probably already seen, gamma ray bursts. If we imagine that a moderately powerful burst hit the Earth, killing most humans (but not all), and severely damaging the ozone layer, what would happen to human-made objects? Would gamma radiation destroy buildings, or leave them unharmed?

I think we can safely assume that a burst would set off a chain of fires and explosions in electric systems, but would materials like wood and brick be damaged at all by the blast itself?

I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Such a gamma-ray burst would need to be maybe a hundred light years away or less, depending on the size of the blast, to kill most human life on Earth. Because type II supernova explosions last for only seconds long, most of the deaths would occur on the side of the Earth facing the supernova at the time the gamma radiation hits us. Probably no radiation would penetrate the Earth far enough to reach the other side if not all human life were eliminated. Few if any structures even on the near side would seemingly appear to be damaged because there would be little additional heat involved. Since such a supernovae lasts for only a few seconds, like x-rays they would pass right through matter without disrupting it much. When gamma-rays pass through living matter it takes only a small percent of damage to cause the system failure of an organism to die immediately or within weeks. More hardy living organisms such as trees would probably be little harmed excepting for maybe losing their leaves or needles. Non-living materials such as wood, brick, glass, and concrete etc. would probably appear unharmed all over the Earth.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Borealis

Greetings, good people!

I have some questions regarding gamma ray bursts that no one seems to be able to answer directly, and I hope that someone here will be able to provide solid answers.

The topic is, as you've probably already seen, gamma ray bursts. If we imagine that a moderately powerful burst hit the Earth, killing most humans (but not all), and severely damaging the ozone layer, what would happen to human-made objects? Would gamma radiation destroy buildings, or leave them unharmed?

I think we can safely assume that a burst would set off a chain of fires and explosions in electric systems, but would materials like wood and brick be damaged at all by the blast itself?

I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

Such a gamma-ray burst would need to be maybe a hundred light years away or less, depending on the size of the blast, to kill most human life on Earth. Because type II supernova explosions last for only seconds long, most of the deaths would occur on the side of the Earth facing the supernova at the time the gamma radiation hits us. Probably no radiation would penetrate the Earth far enough to reach the other side if not all human life were eliminated. Few if any structures even on the near side would seemingly appear to be damaged because there would be little additional heat involved. Since such a supernovae lasts for only a few seconds, like x-rays they would pass right through matter without disrupting it much. When gamma-rays pass through living matter it takes only a small percent of damage to cause the system failure of an organism to die immediately or within weeks. More hardy living organisms such as trees would probably be little harmed excepting for maybe losing their leaves or needles. Non-living materials such as wood, brick, glass, and concrete etc. would probably appear unharmed all over the Earth.

Thank you for your reply!

I really hadn't thought of the fact that only the near side would be harmed (d'oh!) Though I guess the time the ozone layer would take to rebuild would harm the rest of the planet as well, with intense UV-radiation, smog and acid rain. There's enough info about that around the web, but I hadn't been able to find something about how gamma rays affect inanimate matter.

The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm working on a post-apocalyptic novel, and I have no intention of writing something scientifically questionable (or more questionable than necessary when it comes to such an uncertain topic).

If you (or someone else) can provide any follow-ups to this, please do.
I apologize in advance if there are any misunderstandings; English isn't my first language, so no eloquence guaranteed.

Originally Posted by Borealis

Thank you for your reply!

I really hadn't thought of the fact that only the near side would be harmed (d'oh!) Though I guess the time the ozone layer would take to rebuild would harm the rest of the planet as well, with intense UV-radiation, smog and acid rain. There's enough info about that around the web, but I hadn't been able to find something about how gamma rays affect inanimate matter.

The reason I'm asking these questions is that I'm working on a post-apocalyptic novel, and I have no intention of writing something scientifically questionable (or more questionable than necessary when it comes to such an uncertain topic).

If you (or someone else) can provide any follow-ups to this, please do.
I apologize in advance if there are any misunderstandings; English isn't my first language, so no eloquence guaranteed.

Since most people have some understanding and insight into x-rays because of their medical use, you might consider gamma rays as not much different from X-Rays if exposure is only for a few seconds such as in a Gamma-Ray burst. X-rays are used in medicine, to examine welds, as well many other types of non-destructive examinations of both living and non-living entities. Too much exposure can be the cause of radiation burns and cancer. But metal, stone, concrete, are quite x-ray/ gamma ray tolerant/ resistant.

(quote from Wiki below)

The distinction between X-rays and gamma rays has changed in recent decades. Originally, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by X-ray tubes had a longer wavelength than the radiation emitted by radioactive nuclei (gamma rays).Older literature distinguished between X- and gamma radiation on the basis of wavelength, with radiation shorter than some arbitrary wavelength, such as 10⁻¹¹ m, defined as gamma rays. However, as shorter wavelength continuous spectrum "X-ray" sources such as linear accelerators and longer wavelength "gamma ray" emitters were discovered, the wavelength bands largely overlapped. The two types of radiation are now usually distinguished by their origin: X-rays are emitted by electrons outside the nucleus, while gamma rays are emitted by the nucleus.

X-ray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above quote generally means that these two types of radiation are the same or very similar, therefore any damaging effects would be very similar. In the lab two apposing gamma-rays beams meeting at a single point can create positron and electron pairs. It takes directed gamma-ray beams for this experiment which can be more finely focused than X-Rays because of their nuclear source.

So if you think of gamma-rays as interacting with matter very similar to the way that x-rays do then you will have a better idea of how to script your novel

Thank you, that was really helpful!

It's not an easy topic, but as far as I know it hasn't been used a lot in novels, at least not novels that did well enough that they bothered translating them into smaller languages (like mine). Gamma ray bursts are rare and unlikely to harm us, and the type of blast I'm describing is even less likely to occur, by far. So I want to get all facts straight.

Even the side of the planet that is "spared" will suffer greatly, if I'm not mistaken, seeing as the ozone layer is practically gone; there will be a lot of smog, and UV-radiation will be intense. I can imagine blindness being common, and cancer the number one cause of death. Still, acid rain and UV-rads shouldn't harm people at all immediately, right? Though I can imagine buildings taking high damage from at least the rain after some time (the story is initially set 50 years after the burst). Feel free to correct me if I'm running with scissors here.

Originally Posted by Borealis

Thank you, that was really helpful!

It's not an easy topic, but as far as I know it hasn't been used a lot in novels, at least not novels that did well enough that they bothered translating them into smaller languages (like mine). Gamma ray bursts are rare and unlikely to harm us, and the type of blast I'm describing is even less likely to occur, by far. So I want to get all facts straight.

Even the side of the planet that is "spared" will suffer greatly, if I'm not mistaken, seeing as the ozone layer is practically gone; there will be a lot of smog, and UV-radiation will be intense. I can imagine blindness being common, and cancer the number one cause of death. Still, acid rain and UV-rads shouldn't harm people at all immediately, right? Though I can imagine buildings taking high damage from at least the rain after some time (the story is initially set 50 years after the burst). Feel free to correct me if I'm running with scissors here.

Like you said, the ozone layer would be greatly damaged, but UV damage could be somewhat avoided by spending more time indoors and by using UV screening lotions on both exposed skin and under ones clothing if thin. In such a scenario I don't think the incidence of smog would not change excepting by the fires, and maybe less than half the manufacturing resulting from maybe half of humanity dieing. In this scenario smog would a good thing, except for breathing too much of it , since a good part of smog is ozone, some of which eventually would eventually travel up to replenish the ozone layer. I expect there would be less overall rainfall because there would be less pollutants to seed the clouds, but that is just conjecture.

Immediate blindness would be common, and in time the incidence of cancer would be many factors higher. Acid rain involving sulfur pollutants, seemingly would be less. The balance of power in the world would greatly change since maybe half of the world would be wiped out. Because of the depths of the oceans, most of its life would survive. There would seemingly be great spread of disease because of all the carrion and its probable spread on the winds. Inland lakes and streams on the destroyed side would seemingly become very polluted by harmful agents of all kinds.

I don't see that most buildings would be damaged much excepting by the initial fires, and then by the lack of maintenance.

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Borealis

Thank you, that was really helpful!

It's not an easy topic, but as far as I know it hasn't been used a lot in novels, at least not novels that did well enough that they bothered translating them into smaller languages (like mine). Gamma ray bursts are rare and unlikely to harm us, and the type of blast I'm describing is even less likely to occur, by far. So I want to get all facts straight.

Even the side of the planet that is "spared" will suffer greatly, if I'm not mistaken, seeing as the ozone layer is practically gone; there will be a lot of smog, and UV-radiation will be intense. I can imagine blindness being common, and cancer the number one cause of death. Still, acid rain and UV-rads shouldn't harm people at all immediately, right? Though I can imagine buildings taking high damage from at least the rain after some time (the story is initially set 50 years after the burst). Feel free to correct me if I'm running with scissors here.

Like you said, the ozone layer would be greatly damaged, but UV damage could be somewhat avoided by spending more time indoors and by using UV screening lotions on both exposed skin and under ones clothing if thin. In such a scenario I don't think the incidence of smog would not change excepting by the fires, and maybe less than half the manufacturing resulting from maybe half of humanity dieing. In this scenario smog would a good thing, except for breathing too much of it , since a good part of smog is ozone, some of which eventually would eventually travel up to replenish the ozone layer. I expect there would be less overall rainfall because there would be less pollutants to seed the clouds, but that is just conjecture.

Immediate blindness would be common, and in time the incidence of cancer would be many factors higher. Acid rain involving sulfur pollutants, seemingly would be less. The balance of power in the world would greatly change since maybe half of the world would be wiped out. Because of the depths of the oceans, most of its life would survive. There would seemingly be great spread of disease because of all the carrion and its probable spread on the winds. Inland lakes and streams on the destroyed side would seemingly become very polluted by harmful agents of all kinds.

I don't see that most buildings would be damaged much excepting by the initial fires, and then by the lack of maintenance.

Awesome.

I'm initially thinking that around 90% of the population has died, not necessarily from the blast itself, but also diseases, wars and radiation the first few years. 50 years later things should be calming down, smog should be diminishing and UV-radiation shouldn't be an enormous problem (thin plates of lead woven into fabrics would be a cool detail though.) Drinking water would have to be distilled, I guess. I still haven't decided where this blast will hit, if I'll be writing about the impact area or the far side of the Earth. But I do know it's gonna be one hell of a novel. The main focus will be on the human psyche, but post-apocalyptic settings really set the stage for a social analysis impossible in a well-functioning world.

Originally Posted by Borealis

Awesome.

I'm initially thinking that around 90% of the population has died, not necessarily from the blast itself, but also diseases, wars and radiation the first few years. 50 years later things should be calming down, smog should be diminishing and UV-radiation shouldn't be an enormous problem (thin plates of lead woven into fabrics would be a cool detail though.) Drinking water would have to be distilled, I guess. I still haven't decided where this blast will hit, if I'll be writing about the impact area or the far side of the Earth. But I do know it's gonna be one hell of a novel. The main focus will be on the human psyche, but post-apocalyptic settings really set the stage for a social analysis impossible in a well-functioning world.

Since there are no good candidate stars within the required distance that could produce enough gamma-rays for such an event, maybe you might consider a rogue star scenario having roughly between 80-100 solar masses, having a high velocity relative to us. It accordingly could take several years for it to get close enough after its discovery, but for a short time it becomes the brightest star in the sky. It is not expected to come any closer but is expected to leave the vicinity also within a few years after its closest point, when it is realized that it will be coming close to a binary star system within maybe 50 light years from us. Upon its interaction with one of the stars in this system it results in uneven stellar compression due to gravitational influences and goes supernova, type II

best regards, Forrest

Originally Posted by forrest noble

Originally Posted by Borealis

Awesome.

I'm initially thinking that around 90% of the population has died, not necessarily from the blast itself, but also diseases, wars and radiation the first few years. 50 years later things should be calming down, smog should be diminishing and UV-radiation shouldn't be an enormous problem (thin plates of lead woven into fabrics would be a cool detail though.) Drinking water would have to be distilled, I guess. I still haven't decided where this blast will hit, if I'll be writing about the impact area or the far side of the Earth. But I do know it's gonna be one hell of a novel. The main focus will be on the human psyche, but post-apocalyptic settings really set the stage for a social analysis impossible in a well-functioning world.

Since there are no good candidate stars within the required distance that could produce enough gamma-rays for such an event, maybe you might consider a rogue star scenario having roughly between 80-100 solar masses, having a high velocity relative to us. It accordingly could take several years for it to get close enough after its discovery, but for a short time it becomes the brightest star in the sky. It is not expected to come any closer but is expected to leave the vicinity also within a few years after its closest point, when it is realized that it will be coming close to a binary star system within maybe 50 light years from us. Upon its interaction with one of the stars in this system it results in uneven stellar compression due to gravitational influences and goes supernova, type II

best regards, Forrest

Oh - my - god.

That's the most awesome idea ever. Will you allow me to use that? I'm sure it's been done in sci-fi literature, but it would be a fresh addition to a sub-genre where comets and viruses are plague-like clichés.

Originally Posted by Borealis

Oh - my - god.

That's the most awesome idea ever. Will you allow me to use that?

Of course, it's all yours.

I'm sure it's been done in sci-fi literature, but it would be a fresh addition to a sub-genre where comets and viruses are plague-like clichés.

Just PM me if you wish further technical assistance

Have you seen Life After People? Scenario if population was wiped out but everything else remained untouched.

Ok, gamma ray burst kills 90% of the side of earth that is toward it, and disrupts the ozone layer. How exactly does this lead to more smog? And why would you need to distill drinking water after the event? Smog is primarily due to human activity, radically reducing the population should lead to clear skys and cleaner air. A gamma burst would not make the surface of the earth radioactive so why are you distilling drinking water?

You might be interested in this: Did star cluster death rays zap Earth? - space - 07 January 2012 - New Scientist