Jump to content
Junior

The very underestimated problem of RADIOACTIVE lenses

Recommended Posts

Funny thing is I've been a physician for 40 years, with a PhD in Radiology for about 30, so I know a thing or two about radioactivity, and the extent of danger on us...

Technically, are there risks? Yes. Just like there are risks of getting hit by a bus everytime you're walking down the street,

like there are risks of getting poisoned everytime you get an x-ray,

just like there are risks of getting rejected everytime you ask her out :)

Just don't eat your hundred year-old lenses everyday for next 20 years, and you'll be fine, happy shooting people!

 

Ebrahim, you're just a student from Mansoura, Egypt (at the faculty of Dentistry). Too bad I know you from other websites…
SO, you're not physician for 40 years (with a PhD in Radiology for about 30) cause you're 18 years old. SO you don't "know a thing or two about radioactivity, and the extent of danger on us..."
Anyway I believe you about risks of getting rejected everytime you ask her out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony Cameras

Ebrahim, you're just a student from Mansoura, Egypt (at the faculty of Dentistry). Too bad I know you from other websites…
SO, you're not physician for 40 years (with a PhD in Radiology for about 30) cause you're 18 years old. SO you don't "know a thing or two about radioactivity, and the extent of danger on us..."
Anyway I believe you about risks of getting rejected everytime you ask her out.

Read my signature before accusing me with lying.  Don't be so defensive because we don't agree with your point,Junior :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, is there any affordable device (dosimeter maybe) that let's us to measure radiation at home more or less accurately? Let's say I have a vintage lens collection, can I check the radiation levels myself, rather than taking it to a super lab?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 μSv is the dose everyone just got from background radiation in the last 24hrs.

 

So 1 hour of cuddling the rear element of your radioactive lens = 1 normal day living on earth.

 

Just after Fukushima I went to Japan.

 

People there over the entire year had a 1,052 μSv dose of radiation based on Tokyo's readings.

 

That is still only 2% of what the US allows workers to receive per year at work!

 

Source: http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/blog/radiation-101-what-is-it-how-much-is-dangerous-and-how-does-fukushima-compare-to-chernobyl/

 

So say you spent 5 hours shooting with your radioactive lens per day, EVERY DAY of the year. That is still only 1825 Î¼Sv exposure and still under 5% of the total limit which is considered 'safe' by the US authorities.

 

 

Lol, read the first comment in your article ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about the glow in the dark dials on my wrist watch ...shall I stop wearing that now?

I'm going to build a Fariday Cage in my house to shield me from all the Wifi signals in my road .......COS THAT IS CONSTANT 24/7

unlike the old lenses that are all locked away in my lead lined cabinet.

I've stopped using a cell phone too , oh and my tablet ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Junior's case for dangerous ingestion of thorium coating if the lens is smashed and dust ingested somehow, but in the case of just using or living around the lens your skin acts as a shield... the radiation doesn't go past it and the doses aren't enough to cause skin cancer so I honestly don't think there's much to worry about. Obviously the manufacturers (Canon, and plenty of other biggies) would have done a full recall in subsequent years if evidence came up that the lenses were dangerous. They have been around for 30-40 years and there's never been anything proved!

 

I'll remain open minded and see where the argument goes. I did once sell my radioactive FD 35mm F2.0 with concave front element and got the non-radioactive version. Might be a good subject for the A7 book to add in the specs an annual dosage ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish thread.  When my house is burning down I'll call for a fireman.  I won't call upon one to carry out careful experimentation relating to things beyond their capabilities.  

 

I seriously doubt some bloke covered in soot, wearing a firemans hat and rubber boots with a radioshack geiger counter, chatting to you during a fire station open day can prove everyone else wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thread at least since it made me read up, do the math and learn something new:

 

For a person living in Paris you would need to touch a lens emitting 5 microsievert/hour at a minimum of an hour every day, 365 days/year to reach the same level as the yearly background radiation here in Stockholm. Who would have thought?

 

 

Source: "Radon" section at the bottom (With a map showing that half of the population in Sweden live in an area with 5-10 mSv/year) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Naturally-Occurring-Radioactive-Materials-NORM/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish thread.  When my house is burning down I'll call for a fireman.  I won't call upon one to carry out careful experimentation relating to things beyond their capabilities.  

 

Who ya gonna call when your face is burning down? Bobby the UK cop?
In France cops have guns and specialised firemen are specialised.

 

what about the glow in the dark dials on my wrist watch ...shall I stop wearing that now?

I'm going to build a Fariday Cage in my house to shield me from all the Wifi signals in my road .......COS THAT IS CONSTANT 24/7

unlike the old lenses that are all locked away in my lead lined cabinet.

I've stopped using a cell phone too , oh and my tablet ...

 

 

Stop wearing your grand father's wrist watch glowing in the dark if it lasts more than 2 days. It'd be more radioactive than a Takumar; this time it wouldn't be thorium but radium.

http://www.andra.fr/producteurs/download/site-principal/document/objets_radioactifs.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×