Jump to content
Junior

The very underestimated problem of RADIOACTIVE lenses

Recommended Posts

I'm remodeling a mid-century American house.  It was constructed in the early 60's  I'm pretty sure it's made with the tobacco spit of cowboys and asbestos mixed with mule dung.  Whatever.  Like anything else, manage the risks.  Understand the reality.  Words like "radioactive" scare people, but everything's radioactive.  Know what matters and why and it's not a problem.

 

Now excuse me while I drink my mercury and jade elixir so I can live forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Now, if only we can get a fear-monger campaign going that convinces people the Iscoramas are radioactive...

Well there is no need for that because the variable diopters in some Iscoramas are radioactive. Isco Göttingen has a tradition of using contaminated glass, or even glass with thorium for their cinema projection lenses. The pre 36 iscoramas and the cinegon versions are affected, I definitly wouldn't want to use one.

 

Anyway, developing chemicals are dangerous too and nobody cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity I purchased one of these to measure the computers/electronics around me: http://www.amazon.com/Trifield-100XE-EMF-Meter/dp/B00050WQ1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398562001&sr=8-1&keywords=radiation+meter . I ended up moving some equipment around so that I would only be exposed to 2-3mGauss (some UPSs were outputting 100+mG). About a year later I purchased a new MBP and got the meter out to check it. I turned the meter on and the meter was pegged (100+mG, perhaps over 200mG based on the increasing scale). I thought, wow Apple, that's not cool. Then figured perhaps the batteries were low or the meter was bad, since as I walked away from the laptop, the meter didn't drop. I put a new battery in it- same issue. I tried another meter (had also purchased a directional meter)- same issue. I noticed as I walked away from the window the meter dropped a little. So I left the apartment, and walked down the hall. The meter slowly dropped. I left the building until out in the middle of the street- finally back down to 2-3mG. Then a lightbulb went on- about 6 months after I purchased the meter,  SoCal Edison had upgraded the power lines by my window. I had measured right at the window when I got the meter to check the power lines- it was 3mG. I returned to the same window position and the meter was pegged- 100+mG (guessing over 200mG from increasing scale).

 

I had developed this weird shoulder issue where the muscles always stayed contracted- it was my right shoulder and figured was due to mouse/computer use. However every time I left the apartment for a few days or more, my shoulder got better. I never put 2+2 together regarding the upgraded power line. So, I moved everything out of those rooms away from the power line as much as possible (new locations were about 15-30mG, still too high but much lower). My shoulder got better in about a week. I asked my MD if this could be psychosomatic- he said, probably not, he's heard from plenty of patients whose issue(s) got better after reducing EMF exposure.

 

I took the meter with me when looking for a new place to live. I was surprised how bad other places were, but none as high as the old place (top floor, right by power line). Surprisingly, landlords and real estate agents said other people did this practice as well (brought meters with them). The new place I moved to reads less than 2mG in most areas.

 

High EMF is linked to brain cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and leukemia, however the evidence is not yet strong enough for the EPA to regulate it and/or politics and influence from the power companies: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. They suggest moving away from the source of EMF, which I did. Another weird symptom was strange allergies- was it something in that apartment other than EMF? I don't know, but I brought all my equipment and furniture from the old place- so far no more allergies.

 

Regarding ionizing radiation. What does it do? It damages your cells and DNA over time. The good news is if you're eating healthy, exercising, and getting plenty of antioxidants, your body can repair the damage (including DNA) if the doses aren't too high. The problem with studying the health risks is the wide level of variables. Cancer from low-dose long exposure radiation is hard to prove a source of the cause. Smoking won't kill you right away, but it may lead to lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases. Some folks won't get cancer because their bodies can handle the toxic smoke. Others who only got second hand smoke will get cancer. It took a long time to overcome politics, etc., for the truth to get out and for warning labels to be required. That said, people smoke anyways, some still smoking after getting cancer/emphysema, as nicotine is so addictive. Many people think they are immortal or don't think they care about living a long healthy life. However after getting sick some decide they want to live and radically change their behavior.

 

I used to snicker a bit about the 'tin foil hat people'. Now, if there is a known risk and it's easy to avoid, I don't think twice about avoiding the risk. The only issue about the new Faraday cage-like place is I can't get OTA digital TV signals and Verizon coverage is poor (I'm using ATT, some friends use Verizon and their phones don't work very well) :)

 

I could go on about heavy metals, but that's further off topic and a story for another day (short summary- avoid mercury and aluminum in vaccines, don't drink tap water (use RO or distillation and add trace minerals), remove amalgam fillings, skip gadolinium contrast if you ever do an MRI, limit large fish consumption (except perhaps wild salmon), don't drink bismuth (Pepto Bismol etc.)). Two books which can be very helpful:

http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-1&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler

http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Test-Interpretation-Finding-Toxicities/dp/0967616816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-3&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a serious note.  Iscorama's, iscorama 36, 43's centavisions and 54's made between 1960-1989 are rated at the highest radioactivity of all lenses ever produced.  Dangerous levels thought to lead to impotence in men.  According to a bloke at my local fire station he is recommending owners send all iscorama lenses manufactured between these dates to the Dog Schidt Optiks radioactivity decommissioning outpost where they will be carefully disposed of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a serious note.  Iscorama's, iscorama 36, 43's centavisions and 54's made between 1960-1989 are rated at the highest radioactivity of all lenses ever produced.  Dangerous levels thought to lead to impotence in men.  According to a bloke at my local fire station he is recommending owners send all iscorama lenses manufactured between these dates to the Dog Schidt Optiks radioactivity decommissioning outpost where they will be carefully disposed of.

 

No, please send it to me..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really! All this for a few piddling lenses?

There have been a few Nuclear Reactor accidents & we don't seem too concerned about clouds of radioactive shit falling all over us.

Get real, we live in a nuclear age & we're already fucked, because our planet has already been turned into a toxic waste dump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't drink Coke   :)

 

have you ever put a lens is a glass of Coke !

it's amazing after 3 hours it has eaten all the coating off the lens , after 5 hours it has removed all the paint from the casing , and after 6 hours you have a superb very clean shiny lens!!  try it..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, your response is evidence of how radioactive lenses can cause brain damage.
You clearly have no idea whatsoever of what firemen do and how trained/skilled they are.
 

 

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

Check this:

http://petapixel.com/2012/10/11/a-look-at-the-radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses/

 

It says:

"If you want to learn more about the health effects of this radiation, check out this article by the Health Physics Society. Based on that data, Matthew Miller writes"

[...] Or to put it another way, in that year. Not completely trivial, but not something people normally stress about. And .

This puts the “6hrs/day for a month†usage at about the same as getting a chest X-rayusing the lens six hours a day for a year would be the same as taking three round-trip flights from one US coast to the otherthat’d be really heavy usage

The articles indicate that , particularly if you happen to have thorium in an eyepiece [...] So you might decide to spend a little less time holding the camera right to your eye than you might otherwise.

exposure to the eye might be a greater concern than overall dosage

Assuming (based on the reading) that looking through the viewfinder is very roughly an order of magnitude greater exposure than the general usage, .

looking through the viewfinder for an hour is about 1µSv — equivalent to getting an arm x-ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the viewfinder isn't made of thorium glass, which it won't be, everything bolded is not correct about what you actually are getting.  Why?  Because alpha particles aren't penetrating the lens barrel to radiate you through the side of the lens and they aren't penetrating through the camera and coming out the back or through the camera and through the eyepiece optics.  It's not happening.  

 

If alpha particles can't penetrate a piece of paper they aren't passing through multiple layers of metal, plastic and glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the viewfinder isn't made of thorium glass, which it won't be, everything bolded is not correct about what you actually are getting.  Why?  Because alpha particles aren't penetrating the lens barrel to radiate you through the side of the lens and they aren't penetrating through the camera and coming out the back or through the camera and through the eyepiece optics.  It's not happening.  

 

If alpha particles can't penetrate a piece of paper they aren't passing through multiple layers of metal, plastic and glass.

 

You really don't understand what you read Cunningham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you ever put a lens is a glass of Coke !

it's amazing after 3 hours it has eaten all the coating off the lens , after 5 hours it has removed all the paint from the casing , and after 6 hours you have a superb very clean shiny lens!!  try it..........

 Yeah, I know that old trick :)

 

Next door neighbour uses a six litre pack to clean her driveway....

 

Interestingly, some years back I watched a tv programme where three saucers where placed in front of cats and dogs in turn. The saucers contained milk, water and coke. Many pets were tested in choice and not one touched the coke, preferring either the milk or water.

 

Hmmm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich, your response is evidence of how radioactive lenses can cause brain damage.
You clearly have no idea whatsoever of what firemen do and how trained/skilled they are.
 

 

Come on man.  You seriously think I was being serious when I joke about the skills involved in fire safety?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Viewfinder eye-pieces made of Thorium? Now that a entirely different topic. If you can point out a camera maker actually using thorium in an eyepiece now, tell me and I'll sue, and shut down the company.

As I said when it comes to lenses, it is NOT an issue unless you lick it for hours everyday, for months, or eat it. But with an eyepiece, we already do that (keep the eye piece in contact with an exposed part of our body, the eye) so that WOULD be dangerous to your cornea, conjunctiva and even retina. Not carcinogenic but mildly dangerous, especially if you don't wear eye glasses for example (the radiation would never penetrate the glass)

I am truly concerned about this, does anyone actually really make such thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...