Booone0 wrote:
Acme - not sure if this applies directly to the fungus typically affecting camera gear, but it might help to know that many microorganisms sporulate in response to adverse conditions - ie, low moisture or lack of food.
That\'s a good point, but I don\'t think the kind of infestations we commonly see are anywhere close to being ready to fruit. We\'re usually just looking at a starving, nascent organism, barely eking out an existence in what\'s really an inhospitable environment. I\'ve not yet seen one that seemed remotely ready lift itself up and sporulate.
Booone0 wrote:
Not sure if it would be enough, but I can see how (hypothetically) storing fungus-infected gear in the presence of \"clean\" gear could increase the chance of the clean gear developing fungus when conditions become favorable - such as a few days/weeks in a humid environment.
I still think this is an emotional issue more than anything. First, most infected lenses are not fargone enough to be producing spores; surely the primary infection vector. Second, even if a woefully infected lens is cranking out spores nearby, they\'re only going to add to those that constantly blow in from other sources. Given that in suitable conditions it only takes one spore to compromise a lens, even a great increase in the number of spores entering the lenses should make no difference to the rate of infection.
Put differently - if it\'s humid and there\'s something to eat on them, all your equipment is going to be visibly infected soon enough - quarantine of spore-generating lenses or no.
/Acme
Oct 16, 2009 at 04:53 AM
Previous versions of olyacme's message #7647506 « Please Delete »
