Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2010, 12:33 AM   #16
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
of THE people? Which ones? The researches ones? Thats scary!
It's so hard to get good help anymore.
______________________________________________________________________________________

But the easy preventative measure for dealing with scary devices is: DON'T EAT THEM!

Yellow lenses (or snow), cellphones, microwave ovens, iPads/Pods/Peds, P&S's, macro tubes, GPS altimeters, webcams, battery chargers, netbooks, et al -- DON'T EAT THEM! They only cause damage during the passage. Using near your body won't hurt (except maybe the microwave oven). Ingesting them into your body WILL hurt. Don't try this at home, kids.

10-26-2010, 12:35 AM   #17
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
It's so hard to get good help anymore.


But the easy preventative measure for dealing with scary devices is: DON'T EAT THEM!

Yellow lenses (or snow), cellphones, microwave ovens, iPads/Pods/Peds, P&S's, macro tubes, GPS altimeters, webcams, battery chargers, netbooks, et al -- DON'T EAT THEM! They only cause damage during the passage. Using near your body won't hurt (except maybe the microwave oven). Ingesting them into your body WILL hurt. Don't try this at home, kids.
Lol well of course, that does not mean all that you listed does not causeany damage health wise, yeah microwave is a great example, I got rid of my microwave years ago, I can wait 10 mins to heat something in a pan, seems more natural....
10-26-2010, 05:05 AM   #18
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
I got rid of my microwave years ago, I can wait 10 mins to heat something in a pan, seems more natural....
Are you cooking with gas? Not too healthy either, especially considering your pilot light going 24/7. And if electric, how is that more natural than a microwave?
10-26-2010, 05:20 AM   #19
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
Anybody remember "The Journal of Irreproducable Results"?

QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
It's so hard to get good help anymore.
______________________________________________________________________________________

But the easy preventative measure for dealing with scary devices is: DON'T EAT THEM!

Yellow lenses (or snow), cellphones, microwave ovens, iPads/Pods/Peds, P&S's, macro tubes, GPS altimeters, webcams, battery chargers, netbooks, et al -- DON'T EAT THEM! They only cause damage during the passage. Using near your body won't hurt (except maybe the microwave oven). Ingesting them into your body WILL hurt. Don't try this at home, kids.
It was a faux scientific journal with some wonderful articles. One of my favorites was how deadly pickles are.
Did you know that everyone that fought in the Civil War and ate a pickle is now dead?
Did you know that 99.7% of the people in the US that have died of heart attacks once ate at least one pickle?
The article went on listing dire statistic after dire statistic about the dangers of eating pickles.
They presented some experiential data also. Someone force fed rats 10 pounds (about 4.5 kg) of pickles a week and they developed bulging adomens! Not only that but their appetite for healty food was totally destroyed.
The article concluded that the healtiest food to eat was orchid petal soup. No one has ever died from eating orchid petal soup.

NaCl(sort of like The Onion, but for scientists)H2O

10-26-2010, 06:56 AM   #20
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 228
First of all, not all the takumars 1,4/50 are radioactives.

The first version (8 elements) didn't have radioactive elements.
The second version of Super Takumar is the more radiactive of all the takumars 1,4/50.

The S-M-C and the SMC versions are radioactive, but less than the Super Takumar.

The first version, the super takumar and the SMC (include S.M.C and SMC) are three diferent lenses.

I have the S-M-C and it's a great lens. It's the normal for me, for my taste.

Rino.
10-26-2010, 08:31 AM   #21
Raylon
Guest




Nuclear engineer here. As others have said, its an alpha emitter, so as long as you dont lick the lens very often, you will be fine.

Its horrible how often people immediately associate radiation as being somethin horrible and awful. Radiation does far more good in the world than bad. Sure there have been mistakes(*cough*Chernobyl*cough*), but the chances of that happening again are basically zero.
10-26-2010, 08:42 AM   #22
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,479
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
It's beta emitters (moderately worse than alpha) and x-ray/gamma radiation (the real dangerous stuff) that you should worry about.
Thorium = alpha + gamma


That being said, the risk is incredibly low, even with regular use of the camera. The radioactivity is more of a novelty than a cause for concern. By the way...ever use a Coleman gas lantern? The mantles are made with Thorium...


One other thing to consider...Not all Super-Tak 50/1.4 lenses have thorium glass. If it ain't yellow, there is no reason to worry.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 10-26-2010 at 08:53 AM.
10-26-2010, 09:56 AM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
There is a special place to send suspected radioactive lenses. PM me for my address . . . er . . . the address.

10-26-2010, 10:05 AM   #24
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
Are you cooking with gas? Not too healthy either, especially considering your pilot light going 24/7. And if electric, how is that more natural than a microwave?
Answers.com - Why were microwaves banned in Russia

It was also banned in many countries, use google if you want to know more, I am not here to discuss this atm, this is a forum about lenses, not microwave safety.

QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
It was a faux scientific journal with some wonderful articles. One of my favorites was how deadly pickles are.
Did you know that everyone that fought in the Civil War and ate a pickle is now dead?
Did you know that 99.7% of the people in the US that have died of heart attacks once ate at least one pickle?
The article went on listing dire statistic after dire statistic about the dangers of eating pickles.
They presented some experiential data also. Someone force fed rats 10 pounds (about 4.5 kg) of pickles a week and they developed bulging adomens! Not only that but their appetite for healty food was totally destroyed.
The article concluded that the healtiest food to eat was orchid petal soup. No one has ever died from eating orchid petal soup.

NaCl(sort of like The Onion, but for scientists)H2O
This is a ridiculous analogy. Seriously?

QuoteOriginally posted by estudleon Quote
First of all, not all the takumars 1,4/50 are radioactives.

The first version (8 elements) didn't have radioactive elements.
The second version of Super Takumar is the more radiactive of all the takumars 1,4/50.

The S-M-C and the SMC versions are radioactive, but less than the Super Takumar.

The first version, the super takumar and the SMC (include S.M.C and SMC) are three diferent lenses.

I have the S-M-C and it's a great lens. It's the normal for me, for my taste.

Rino.
Thanks, Did not know that.

QuoteOriginally posted by Raylon Quote
Nuclear engineer here. As others have said, its an alpha emitter, so as long as you dont lick the lens very often, you will be fine.

Its horrible how often people immediately associate radiation as being somethin horrible and awful. Radiation does far more good in the world than bad. Sure there have been mistakes(*cough*Chernobyl*cough*), but the chances of that happening again are basically zero.
Thats good to know, I know not all radiation is horrible, Just was not aware of what type was bad etc.... Thanks.
10-26-2010, 11:51 AM   #25
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,479
QuoteOriginally posted by Raylon Quote
Its horrible how often people immediately associate radiation as being somethin horrible and awful. Radiation does far more good in the world than bad. Sure there have been mistakes(*cough*Chernobyl*cough*), but the chances of that happening again are basically zero.
I tend to agree, though I also understand the OP's concerns. It is probably better to determine the facts, weigh the risks, and make an appropriate decision. In my region radiation hazard is very real and not taken lightly. No, I am not downwind from Chernobyl, though both of my parents were downwind from the Hanford Reservation and were exposed to releases of radioactive iodine, back-in-the-day, from the weapons facility there. The hill where my house was built is the remnant of an extinct volcano. As a result, there is the potential for relatively high levels of radon gas here and in many areas of my county. Am I going to sell my house? No. Testing has determined that the concentration in the living areas of the house is relatively low so I am not particularly worried. The testing is required by law for all new construction and is occasionally done on existing structures as well. Just this last Spring a building used by a local municipality had be declared unfit for occupation due to excess radon. I think they are using it for storage now.


Steve


BTW...do we dare mention how residential smoke detectors work?
10-26-2010, 12:27 PM   #26
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,212
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I tend to agree, though I also understand the OP's concerns. It is probably better to determine the facts, weigh the risks, and make an appropriate decision. In my region radiation hazard is very real and not taken lightly. No, I am not downwind from Chernobyl, though both of my parents were downwind from the Hanford Reservation and were exposed to releases of radioactive iodine, back-in-the-day, from the weapons facility there. The hill where my house was built is the remnant of an extinct volcano. As a result, there is the potential for relatively high levels of radon gas here and in many areas of my county. Am I going to sell my house? No. Testing has determined that the concentration in the living areas of the house is relatively low so I am not particularly worried. The testing is required by law for all new construction and is occasionally done on existing structures as well. Just this last Spring a building used by a local municipality had be declared unfit for occupation due to excess radon. I think they are using it for storage now.


Steve


BTW...do we dare mention how residential smoke detectors work?
When I was at X10 (aka ornl at Oak Ridge) we used to test our Geiger Counters with coleman lantern mantles.
10-26-2010, 12:51 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,400
maybe pentax was just ahead of the times, thinking that radio active lenses could double as battery warmers for cold weather users

I'm sure that lens was designed before the camera needed a battery though
10-26-2010, 01:22 PM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote

*snip*

This is a ridiculous analogy. Seriously?
Of course not! Didn't you read the source? The Journal of Irreproducible Results? Did you actually seriously think that real science would be reported in such a journal?

NaCl(some ppl have no sense of humor)H2O
10-26-2010, 01:23 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 672
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
Answers.com - Why were microwaves banned in Russia

It was also banned in many countries, use google if you want to know more, I am not here to discuss this atm, this is a forum about lenses, not microwave safety.
Seriously? Google. Really? You know what else Google may tell you? That Mogdor, lord of the underworld comes to the surface and eats all the first born children of a particular generation that usually coincides with the alignment of Venus with Pluto. Afterwards, he plays with his pet chupacabra, and then watches The Wonder Years on TV Land (depending on if the hotel has cable or DishNetwork).
10-26-2010, 01:27 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
maybe pentax was just ahead of the times, thinking that radio active lenses could double as battery warmers for cold weather users

I'm sure that lens was designed before the camera needed a battery though
In addition they might produce enough glow to make night shooting easier! And just think, with a bag full of them you wouldn't need a flashlight during a power outage, like when your local nuclear power plant goes off line because of a coolant leak.

NaCl(now thats a versitile lens! Battery warmer, flashlight, and and boy is it sharp!)H2O
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, radiation, slr lens, takumar 50mm f1.4
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are all Takumar 300mm radioactive? oxidized Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 03-05-2010 04:39 PM
So who has a Radioactive Lens? konraDarnok Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 24 10-02-2009 02:37 PM
Radioactive lenses alexfoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 07-29-2009 06:27 AM
Is your Takumar radioactive? SteveM Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 06-14-2009 07:09 PM
Some Takumars radioactive? FHPhotographer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 33 09-20-2008 08:30 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top