[monochrome]

You get 252 millirems a year from breathing. Mostly Radon in your cellar.

.:

[Ronald Oakes]

I see that's 170 microrems per hour.

To put that in perspective: Assuming, you stood next to that ice chest all day: You're looking at 1.7 μSv X 24 = 40.8 μSv
That's pretty much the same amount as one New York to LA flight.

I see you live in Arizona, where you'd get around 10 μSv per day in natural background radiation.
You really do not want to live in a place like Carlsbad, New Mexico, where the 'natural' background radiation levels may be even higher than that.

If you mail the ice chest and lenses to me I'll dispose of it safely for you - free of charge.

Ummm….I lived in Carlsbad NM for nearly 7 years. That's where I developed severe skin cancer and a host of other severe symptoms. Of course I think you already knew that ?
Yeah....Carlsbad NM is about the nastiest place on earth as far as Im concerned. With WIPP and all the oilfield H2s , its a miracle anyone is alive there.
Sorry....I need to sell them.

[MarkJerling]

Ummm….I lived in Carlsbad NM for nearly 7 years. That's where I developed severe skin cancer and a host of other severe symptoms. Of course I think you already knew that ?
Yeah....Carlsbad NM is about the nastiest place on earth as far as Im concerned. With WIPP and all the oilfield H2s , its a miracle anyone is alive there.
Sorry....I need to sell them.

My point was that you really need not concern yourself with the exceedingly low levels of radiation given off by those lenses. They are adding minor amounts to otherwise normal background radiation. If there are any particular ones that give very "high" readings (relative to the others) that have you concerned, then, by all means, sell those of it makes you feel better.

But, we're talking here about what makes you feel better - nor about what would make a measurable difference to your health.
I mentioned Carlsbad for that very reason. It's background radiation figures are very high - yet, that does not have a measurable outcome as to lifespan for it's inhabitants, statistically speaking.

My comments with regard to disposal of your lenses was tongue in cheek.

[Ronald Oakes]

My point was that you really need not concern yourself with the exceedingly low levels of radiation given off by those lenses. They are adding minor amounts to otherwise normal background radiation. If there are any particular ones that give very "high" readings (relative to the others) that have you concerned, then, by all means, sell those of it makes you feel better.

But, we're talking here about what makes you feel better - nor about what would make a measurable difference to your health.
I mentioned Carlsbad for that very reason. It's background radiation figures are very high - yet, that does not have a measurable outcome as to lifespan for it's inhabitants, statistically speaking.

My comments with regard to disposal of your lenses was tongue in cheek.

I appreciate that Mark. What would take more time off my life , stressing over cancer and severe symptoms and what may have contributed to it , or feeling Safe and getting rid of them ?

As far as Carlsbad NM.....there is so much cover-up going on there with the Gnome project , W.I.P.P. (Radioactive Storage facility) , the Govt ……. Im very glad to be long gone from there. People die for no known reason , and birds drop dead out of the trees...….something is going on.

I was there in 2012 when the WIPP plant went into alarm over a radiation leak. The entire town wasn't right.

Last I heard background radiation in Carlsbad was raised to something like 34 but I may be wrong on that one

---

Last edited by Ronald Oakes; 05-17-2018 at 05:12 PM.

[MarkJerling]

I appreciate that Mark. What would take more time off my life , stressing over cancer and severe symptoms and what may have contributed to it , or feeling Safe and getting rid of them ?

I hope you don't stress about Takumars Ronald - too many other things to stress about.
Feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing.

[MossyRocks]

You still have lots of things to learn about radioactivity.
232Th has sons, the sons have sons, etc. At the end you get Pb (as for U sons):




Gamma rays are never shown on this kind of drawing, as gamma is a consequence of other types of emissions.

I provided a similar chart in one of my links as well. As mentioned in my first post the gamma radiation (which is just the category ionizing electromagnetic radiation) emitted is in the UV-C range, not X-ray range, or cosmic ray range. Gamma radiation sounds much worse than UV-C radiation at 163nm.

I admit it has been a long time since I had read one of those charts (not since college) and I did misread the beta decay but even those are stopped by thin sheets of metal like what would be found in the freezer so the beta radiation measured when the lenses were in the freezer wasn't from the lenses.

[photoptimist]

I provided a similar chart in one of my links as well. As mentioned in my first post the gamma radiation (which is just the category ionizing electromagnetic radiation) emitted is in the UV-C range, not X-ray range, or cosmic ray range. Gamma radiation sounds much worse than UV-C radiation at 163nm.

I admit it has been a long time since I had read one of those charts (not since college) and I did misread the beta decay but even those are stopped by thin sheets of metal like what would be found in the freezer so the beta radiation measured when the lenses were in the freezer wasn't from the lenses.

Sorry, but what you are saying about gamma rays and UV-C is entirely wrong.

Gamma rays have nothing to do with UV-C other than that they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. Typical wavelengths for gamma rays created by radioactive decay are 0.0024 nm giving them about 70,000 times the energy of a UV-C photon. Gamma rays are above the x-ray range (and can travel through materials that would stop x-rays) and below the cosmic ray range in energy.

[MossyRocks]

Sorry, but what you are saying about gamma rays and UV-C is entirely wrong.

Gamma rays have nothing to do with UV-C other than that they are both forms of electromagnetic radiation. Typical wavelengths for gamma rays created by radioactive decay are 0.0024 nm giving them about 70,000 times the energy of a UV-C photon. Gamma rays are above the x-ray range (and can travel through materials that would stop x-rays) and below the cosmic ray range in energy.

In reading your post I did some more digging because I do like to learn. The value that I had used that was producing photons in the UV-C range was from a thorium decay but not Th232 but from Th229 which does emit photons at 7.6 eV putting it in the UV-C range but because it originates from a nuclear decay it is considered a gamma ray. I misread that originally and ended up thinking that was from the thorium 232 decay, not throium 229, so that really isn't applicable to the discussion about emissions from old Takumar lenses, but it was the only real value for gamma emissions from thorium I found without a deep dive like I just did. Finding information on gamma ray energy releases from the Th232 decay chain, or any decay chain, is a real pain but I manage to find what appears to be a fairly complete list from Cal Poly Panoma, or at least more complete than others that I found (see the previous link). This took a fair amount of digging and several attempts since most that mention gamma emissions from the thorium decay chain range from near 0 eV to over 1 MeV which doesn't tell you much. For the entire chain going from Th232 to Pb208 the range of photon emissions are from 39.9 KeV (.031 nm) up to 1588.2 KeV (.00078 nm) with 17 of the emissions from the entire decay chain being under 500 KeV with 4 of those being under 100 KeV, and 12 being above 500 KeV with only 1 above 1000 KeV. So now there are actual numbers others can talk to.

[TwoUptons]

Ronald,
Would it help your peace of mind to put the lenses with the greatest worry in one of those lead lined bags we used to put film in?
Seems to me that would let you safely keep them if you wanted to work through a long term solution when you’re feeling better.
I get wanting them gone, and I’m sure lots of folks here will help you with that 🙂
I also get wanting to make sure you do it on your terms when you’re in the right frame of mind...

-Eric

[ZombieArmy]

Ronald, I see you're in incredible danger owning these Takumar lenses. To put your mind at ease I will send you a prepaid shipping label and you can send the entire collection for me to be disposed of on the front of my camera.

I hope this will let you rest easy.

[Kerrowdown]

I may keep my A's and K's

Aye my friend, sounds like to me... get them Taks oot and make more room for "Ladies"

[Ronald Oakes]

Ronald,
Would it help your peace of mind to put the lenses with the greatest worry in one of those lead lined bags we used to put film in?
Seems to me that would let you safely keep them if you wanted to work through a long term solution when you’re feeling better.
I get wanting them gone, and I’m sure lots of folks here will help you with that 🙂
I also get wanting to make sure you do it on your terms when you’re in the right frame of mind...

-Eric

Thanks ! I thought of that also. I appreciate also being in the right frame of mind. Anxiety and being paranoid are terrible.

[normhead]

My Tan 50 1.4 is sitting right beside me in a camera case, that's going to change.

[Ronald Oakes]

My Tan 50 1.4 is sitting right beside me in a camera case, that's going to change.

? I talked with another somewhat expert in radiation and they assured me the levels are quite low and explained it in greater detail.
Im still selling all my Taks…..lol

[MarkJerling]

? I talked with another somewhat expert in radiation and they assured me the levels are quite low and explained it in greater detail.
Im still selling all my Taks…..lol

Next you'll get rid of your old wristwatches and the smoke alarms in the house!