July 25, 2014, 08:15:41 AM

Author Topic: How many radioactive lenses do you own?  (Read 7512 times)

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3733
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2014, 01:12:33 PM »
You all realize that bananas, potatoes, and even beer is radioactive due to the presence of the naturally occurring K-40 (potassium 40) isotope, right?

 8) Yeah, but that's one of those semi-stable isotopes with exceptionally long half-lives. K-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years! The dose in a banana is about 0.1µSv, or 0.0000001Sv. For the average human, radiation doses under 100mSv (0.1Sv) per year have no measurable health effects. You would need to eat one million and one bananas in a year to experience the most minimally measurable health effect due to potassium-40 radiation exposure. (I actually don't think that is humanly possible, to eat that many bananas.)
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #30 on: February 04, 2014, 01:12:33 PM »

flowers

  • Guest
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #31 on: February 04, 2014, 02:57:46 PM »
Super Tak 50mm, but technically isn’t everything on earth somewhat radioactive?


If that's a joke, then yes...we even have radioactive personalities! :P

If it's not a joke...no, not everything on earth is radioactive. There are radioactive elements and non-radioactive elements. The difference is that radioactive elements have no stable primordial isotopes (in other words, they will be stable for so long as to effectively be stable forever.) There are some elements that theoretically have unstable isotopes but their half life is so long that they don't naturally decay at a rate we can measure or observe. The rest have half lives that can be measured or observed. All artificial elements are unstable and will radioactively decay.

Little bit of trivia. When it comes to the most dangerous radioactive elements, plutonium is considered the most toxic material on earth, as a handful of atoms are apparently enough to kill.  :o So...if your lens is made of plutonium...best ditch it. :P


Haha! On a related note, most of my grandmother's glassware was made of uranium glass. I spent a lot of time with my grandparents when I was a child so a large portion of the food I ate during the first 15 years of my life I ate from uranium glass plates






Don't be surprised if I glow in the dark!


 :o Yikes. Does your tongue glow? :P (Or, for that matter...has your tongue fallen off yet?   ???)


Ha ha! No, I still have my tongue! And it's red, not green :) According to wikipedia the glass is only slightly radioactive (no worse than our radioactive lenses) but I'm not sure if they mean the uranium glass with 2% or 25% uranium :D I'm pretty sure my grandmother's dishware had a high uranium content in it though because it glowed bright green even in sunlight :D No joke, they really glow green. But I've always been healthy!

Jackson_Bill

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
    • View Profile
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #32 on: February 04, 2014, 03:40:06 PM »
You all realize that bananas, potatoes, and even beer is radioactive due to the presence of the naturally occurring K-40 (potassium 40) isotope, right?

 8) Yeah, but that's one of those semi-stable isotopes with exceptionally long half-lives. K-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years! The dose in a banana is about 0.1µSv, or 0.0000001Sv. For the average human, radiation doses under 100mSv (0.1Sv) per year have no measurable health effects. You would need to eat one million and one bananas in a year to experience the most minimally measurable health effect due to potassium-40 radiation exposure. (I actually don't think that is humanly possible, to eat that many bananas.)

All true, Jon, although another way of putting it is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit on dose to the public (above background) is 1 mSV, which, I agree, is still a lot of bananas :-).
My point was that we are exposed to many sources of radiation, natural and man-made, every day. The implication (in some posts) that Fukushima caused some measurable increase in the dose from lenses manufactured in Japan is bogus. Discussion of radioactive lenses isn't really meaningful unless you consider the associated dose, which is likely to be very small, if measurable at all.

flowers

  • Guest
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #33 on: February 04, 2014, 05:41:46 PM »
You all realize that bananas, potatoes, and even beer is radioactive due to the presence of the naturally occurring K-40 (potassium 40) isotope, right?

 8) Yeah, but that's one of those semi-stable isotopes with exceptionally long half-lives. K-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years! The dose in a banana is about 0.1µSv, or 0.0000001Sv. For the average human, radiation doses under 100mSv (0.1Sv) per year have no measurable health effects. You would need to eat one million and one bananas in a year to experience the most minimally measurable health effect due to potassium-40 radiation exposure. (I actually don't think that is humanly possible, to eat that many bananas.)

All true, Jon, although another way of putting it is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit on dose to the public (above background) is 1 mSV, which, I agree, is still a lot of bananas :-).
My point was that we are exposed to many sources of radiation, natural and man-made, every day. The implication (in some posts) that Fukushima caused some measurable increase in the dose from lenses manufactured in Japan is bogus. Discussion of radioactive lenses isn't really meaningful unless you consider the associated dose, which is likely to be very small, if measurable at all.

The amount of radiation in some areas in Fukushima at this very moment is 25 Sieverts/hour. Not millisieverts, sieverts. Every hour. Of course those areas are very close to the reactor, but with all the contaminated water and the workers running out of places to put it and more and more of it spreading to the ground water plus all the other radioactive waste and gases spreading it's a little naive to say that it's impossible that the radiation levels of lenses manufactured so close to the plant haven't increased at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LyqsN38BSc
Takumar 50/1.7, radiation: 0.08 mSv/hour (back of the lens), 0.007 mSv/hour other parts, average. That's 61 mSv/year from most parts of the lens, 700 mSv/year from the back of the lens. That's sixty-one  and seven hundred, the latter number is more than 100.

Please at least find out the numbers before you speak up.

Of course if the radiation levels were really so users of those lenses were in significant increased danger of getting cancer (which starts from a single mutated cell by the way) I guess we wouldn't be joking about it with such levity. Or would we? Who knows. Like all artists, photographers are crazy :) Crazy!

edit: oops, I got the numbers crazy wrong! I blame the meter... I watched the whole video again after I realized the numbers didn't make any sense. Ha ha! Numbers corrected.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 05:55:37 PM by flowers »

hanifshootsphotos

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #34 on: February 04, 2014, 05:50:44 PM »
Just curious! A little bit of fun (but honest answers please!)

I own one two. :)

I'm not reading this thread, but man did I laugh when I read the title post.

flowers

  • Guest
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #35 on: February 04, 2014, 05:56:22 PM »
Just curious! A little bit of fun (but honest answers please!)

I own one two. :)

I'm not reading this thread, but man did I laugh when I read the title post.

Well the whole thread is supposed to be a little lighthearted fun! :D Just interested in how many people own. :)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2786
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2014, 06:10:16 PM »
You all realize that bananas, potatoes, and even beer is radioactive due to the presence of the naturally occurring K-40 (potassium 40) isotope, right?
I was working in New Brunswick, Canada, when the Point LePreau reactor came on line.... The next day there was a huge headline in the paper loudly exclaiming "LEVELS OF RADIATION FOUND IN POINT LEPREAU CONTROL ROOM". the next day there was a tiny retraction in the back of the paper explaining that the levels of radiation found were less than that found naturally occurring in nature :)

Radiation makes for catchy headlines.
The best camera is the one in your hands

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #36 on: February 04, 2014, 06:10:16 PM »

jrista

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3733
  • POTATO
    • View Profile
    • Nature Photography
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2014, 06:50:47 PM »
You all realize that bananas, potatoes, and even beer is radioactive due to the presence of the naturally occurring K-40 (potassium 40) isotope, right?

 8) Yeah, but that's one of those semi-stable isotopes with exceptionally long half-lives. K-40 has a half life of 1.25 billion years! The dose in a banana is about 0.1µSv, or 0.0000001Sv. For the average human, radiation doses under 100mSv (0.1Sv) per year have no measurable health effects. You would need to eat one million and one bananas in a year to experience the most minimally measurable health effect due to potassium-40 radiation exposure. (I actually don't think that is humanly possible, to eat that many bananas.)

All true, Jon, although another way of putting it is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission limit on dose to the public (above background) is 1 mSV, which, I agree, is still a lot of bananas :-).
My point was that we are exposed to many sources of radiation, natural and man-made, every day. The implication (in some posts) that Fukushima caused some measurable increase in the dose from lenses manufactured in Japan is bogus. Discussion of radioactive lenses isn't really meaningful unless you consider the associated dose, which is likely to be very small, if measurable at all.

The amount of radiation in some areas in Fukushima at this very moment is 25 Sieverts/hour. Not millisieverts, sieverts. Every hour. Of course those areas are very close to the reactor, but with all the contaminated water and the workers running out of places to put it and more and more of it spreading to the ground water plus all the other radioactive waste and gases spreading it's a little naive to say that it's impossible that the radiation levels of lenses manufactured so close to the plant haven't increased at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LyqsN38BSc
Takumar 50/1.7, radiation: 0.08 mSv/hour (back of the lens), 0.007 mSv/hour other parts, average. That's 61 mSv/year from most parts of the lens, 700 mSv/year from the back of the lens. That's sixty-one  and seven hundred, the latter number is more than 100.

Please at least find out the numbers before you speak up.

Of course if the radiation levels were really so users of those lenses were in significant increased danger of getting cancer (which starts from a single mutated cell by the way) I guess we wouldn't be joking about it with such levity. Or would we? Who knows. Like all artists, photographers are crazy :) Crazy!

edit: oops, I got the numbers crazy wrong! I blame the meter... I watched the whole video again after I realized the numbers didn't make any sense. Ha ha! Numbers corrected.

@Jackson_Bill: Oh, I totally agree with you about Fukushima! Totally overblown by media hypersensationalistic fools who wouldn't know their asshole from a rathole. :P

The problem is people don't understand that there are different kinds of radiation, from EM to beta particle decay to hard alpha decay. They also don't understand that not all radioactive sources are the same. Release of plutonium would be a serious problem, especially at 25 Sv/hr, but that isn't what's happening.

There are heavier unstable isotopes like plutonium and uranium that, as they decay, produce both hard radiation (alpha and beta particles as well as ultra high energy gamma ray) and further radioactive materials that will continue to decay, sometimes via the same hard alpha-particle process. There are also lighter unstable isotopes, like the stuff at Fukushima, that decay quickly into smaller STABLE isotopes. The energy levels of lighter weight isotopic decay are much lower than with heavier isotopes as well, and it is usually not the same kind of highly reactive and dangerous alpha particles or ultra high energy gamma ray radiation...instead you get beta decay (release of a free neutron, which further decays into an proton, electron and a neutrino within seconds) and low energy gamma ray radiation.

So the "reach" of the radiation being released at Fukushima is also not as high as it was in the case of Chernobil. (Chernobil was an unmitigated disaster propagated by the utter foolishness of the Russians (the Russians just work differently...have you ever watched those videos on YouTube about how the Russians drive and have car accidents all the time...it's rather insightful!! Them pplz is CRA-ZY! :P  ::)) The Russians built the least safe and least contained reactors I think the earth will ever see, so when their reactor melted down, it literally melted down and released a highly radioactive radiation cloud that rained down dangerous particles like plutonium, uranium, and closely related derivatives as well as a whole host of lighter radioactive isotopes into the surrounding environment. Un-miti-gated disaster. Will never happen again. Because of Chernobil, the countries that use nuclear energy do so with ultra hardened reactors with multiple levels of containment. The general design is a central containment vessel for the actual nuclear reaction, where the fuel and control rods are, a surrounded by a containment vessel for coolant, further surrounded by a concrete core containment vessel designed to contain a complete meltdown of all nuclear fuels, and a final outer containment vessel surrounding the concrete core and the inner containment vessels. A disaster like Chernobil is practically impossible, even if an earthquake causes damage, you would effectively need the earthquake to be right on top of the plant and crack all the containment vessels right through to the core in order for plutonium and uranium to be released.) 

The kind of radiation that is occurring at Fukushima is due to the pumping of water through the reactors to cool them down. The reactions within the reactor cores are uncontrolled or nearly uncontrolled. I do not know for sure if there were full meltdowns or only runaway reactions that are barely controlled, but it still produces a tremendous amount of heat and EM radiation. That radiation has the tendency to produce lighter radioactive isotopes as it reacts with particles in the coolant water (which is seawater, which contains a number of stable elements that can be temporarily converted into radioactive isotopes under the right conditions.)

Fact is, those are really short lived isotopes, with half lives on the order of minutes, hours, or days. The radiation that makes it into the oceans is going to be absorbed pretty thoroughly. Within a month of any contaminated water leakage being finally stopped, it would probably be pretty tough to detect any radiation in the nearby ocean water. Another thing most people don't understand is that the ocean is a heavily buffered solution, and it'll absorb pretty much anything and everything without there being terribly adverse reactions to the ecosystem. (There may be some very long term benign affects over the coming decades and centuries, and for marine life right off shore, there may be some more immediate affects under prolonged exposure.)

So, it may be 25 Sv/hr, but it isn't 25 Sv/hr of super deadly radiation from plutonium or uranium particles or anything like that which decay via alpha particles and high energy gamma rays (hard radiation) to further radioactive materials and so on (that's why plutonium is so dangerous, the radioactive decay continues on and on once it's in your system, continuously wreaking havoc). It isn't a cataclysmic issue like many would have you believe. It's short-lived light isotopes that decay quickly into stable isotopes that can't decay further.

The radiation is largely contained to Fukushima and the surrounding ocean, and is relatively short lived. So I wouldn't expect any lens manufacture nearby to result in a whole bunch of radioactive lenses.
My Photography
Current Gear: Canon 7D | Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS II | EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS | EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L | EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro | 50mm f/1.4
New Gear List: Canon 5D III/7D II | Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L II

dtaylor

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 449
    • View Profile
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #38 on: February 04, 2014, 07:00:19 PM »
FYI - there's at least one app for the iPhone that can measure radioactivity: RadioactivityCounter. You have to cover your iPhone camera lens so that no light gets through, calibrate it by leaving it away from anything radioactivity for a few minutes, then place it very close to the source. It takes a while to get an accurate measurement but it does work. The app measures changes in noise output by the sensor.

Tested it with a few old lenses and found one radioactive one, the FL 50 f/1.8.

flowers

  • Guest
Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2014, 07:19:51 PM »


I quoted those numbers because some people were talking about Fukushima as if the largest radiation dose anywhere near the place would be measured in single millisievers or less! But of course you're right, different radioactive materials emit different amounts if different radiation types which are dangerous in different ways.

Now let's put an end to this! I made this thread as something fun and lighthearted so let's keep it that way. No one should worry about a little radiation, it's normal, or even a lot of radiation like multiple CT scans and x-rays. Life is too short to worry! But it's also not good to think radiation can't ever harm you.
edit: removed bleak stuff! :)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 07:49:55 PM by flowers »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« Reply #39 on: February 04, 2014, 07:19:51 PM »