Jump to content
Junior

The very underestimated problem of RADIOACTIVE lenses

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Fur and feathers are much more expensive to render. Wonder if Jurassic World (2015) will render them with feathers? A flamingo pink, Barney purple, or multicolor parrot feathered T-Rex would be entertaining, allowing for some comedic writing and scenes ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fur and feathers are much more expensive to render. Wonder if Jurassic World (2015) will render them with feathers? A flamingo pink, Barney purple, or multicolor parrot feathered T-Rex would be entertaining, allowing for some comedic writing and scenes ;)

 

Its complete disaster for Hollywood. Watching big feathered chick instead of cold skin reptail hunting you on screen is not scary anymore :)
Btw T-rexes couldnt be predators because they were so slow to chatch anything. They couldnt generate enought speed. They were only slow scavengers. :)

yel1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, I'd still avoid the T-Rex regardless of color, feathers, fur, or scales. And, unlike Pluto which lost its planet status, T-Rex still has its crown as king of the predators: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/16/time-to-slay-the-t-rex-scavenger-debate/

 

While clowns are colorful and silly, they have been used as scary bad guys in plenty of films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The most dangerous exposure isn't even radiations but dusts to inhalate or ingerate (when a lens gets old it disaggregates - it's something you can't always clearly see).

 

Probably an alpha particle emitter.  Skin is enough to block alpha particle absorption but if the particles find their way in through some other route say mouth, nose, etc then you are definitely in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great thread, has been wonderful to read and actually thank you to the original poster because it is well intentioned and interesting.

 

Thank you even more though to the people curious enough to do some proper research, because hysteria is everywhere today and it is not constructive. Most people don't have any real threats effecting them, so they invent them. This is human nature. One example is the complete decommissioning of nuclear in Germany due to a one-in-1000 year 5000 mile away tsunami which happened to one plant on the coast of Japan combined with a magnitude 9 earthquake.

 

Clearly nuclear is very dangerous in such circumstances. As it would be in your kitchen.

 

So the Germans decided to kill their perfectly safe nuclear industry and become dependant on expensive, ugly windmills and Russian nuclear power (a whole lot less safe) because of the threat of a magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami!

 

Logical?!

 

About as logical as being scared of a 35mm F2 :)

 

 

Relax Andrew.  The Germans can now rely on clean burning Russian natural gas.  What could possibly go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2014 at 0:54 PM, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

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!

Wow that is probably the least scientific answer i have heard from a radiologist. Even just reading the other responses puts your answer to shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I was a little disappointed by some of the condescending posts in this thread. The guy was just passing on a safety notice about particular lenses that have a cult following but could actually be quite dangerous to young organs. He wasnt trying to sell a product to protect anyone or any other kind of promotion and was arrogantly cut down by enthusiasts (at best) when he actually took a more scientific approach and was acting on advice from people who specialise in radioactivity. 

Regardless of what else in this world gives us similar values of exposure, I dont think this info was handled very maturely. You guys could have easily just said, something along the lines of, 'thanks for the info Jr. I love my lens and will keep using it but thanks for looking out for us.'

This forum should be more supportive of its members and not falling into troll territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% wrong Ed. Radiologists are medical doctors specialising in detecting and curing disease via medical imaging techniques. Maybe you're thinking of radiographers who are trained (degree level) to perform X-Rays, MRIs and CT scans, so it's nothing to be snobbish about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the last thing I was expecting was defending the content of a post of Ebrahim (Sr, Jr, whatever), but it is actually correct. I read it as pure sarcasm on the 'risks' of radioactive lenses (which are indeed small).

A radiologist would know, as they are specialized MD's (consultants in english) in the field of medical imaging. Conventional X-ray and CT scans use radiation and they get trained in this.

So perhaps this truly was Senior speaking, Who knows.

Btw, in my own day job I work as a Family Physician.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Timotheus said:

 

A radiologist would know, as they are specialized MD's (consultants in english) in the field of medical imaging. Conventional X-ray and CT scans use radiation and they get trained in this.

So perhaps this truly was Senior speaking, Who knows.

What are you talking about??? He's given no substantial theory whatsoever about radiation, nothing that would even remotely sugest he's anything close to a radiologist (not that that would make him a specialist in understanding the type of radiation coming from these lenes anyway), if you're even considering that it's really "Senior" speaking please PM me, I have a few Rangefinders for sale :blush:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tweak said:

What are you talking about??? He's given no substantial theory whatsoever about radiation, nothing that would even remotely sugest he's anything close to a radiologist (not that that would make him a specialist in understanding the type of radiation coming from these lenes anyway), if you're even considering that it's really "Senior" speaking please PM me, I have a few Rangefinders for sale :blush:.

LOL ;-)

Let's not overdramatize the thing too much. I see most of you don't have teenagers at home... : D

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...