This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Beware Radioactive Lenses
p.2 #1Beware Radioactive Lenses
Z250SA wrote:
None the less, you use past tense about them... It could, of course, be a consequence of Life itself, with a death rate of 100%.
Yes Canon stopped making and selling FD lenses many years ago
So I suppose many people are dead that used them
Lars Johnsson wrote
What about all those ten thousends of people that used them every days for many years. And had them in the same room they where sleeping every day also. Never heard about anybody that got sick........Yes Canon stopped making and selling FD lenses many years ago
So I suppose many people are dead that used themDec 17, 2010 at 02:01 PM
p.2 #2Beware Radioactive Lenses
morpheus2891 wrote:
... not smoking and eating healthy (organic for those of us in the US) is way more important for avoiding cancer then your choice of photographic lenses.
Indeed. I couldn't agree more, but I would have to say "beyond organic", since "organic" has been completely bastardized by the FDA so that Big Food can cash in and continue to control food.
(Good on you Germany, for banning that MON 810 !!!)
... not smoking and eating healthy (organic for those of us in the US) is way more important for avoiding cancer then your choice of photographic lenses.
Indeed. I couldn't agree more, but I would have to say "beyond organic", since "organic" has been completely bastardized by the FDA so that Big Food can cash in and continue to control food.
(Good on you Germany, for banning that MON 810 !!!)
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:05 PM
p.2 #3Beware Radioactive Lenses
I've got an aero ektar that's got thorium (I think?) in it. At first I was conserned, but then I read up on how much is really in there, and it's not really anything to be worried about. Maybe if you built your house out of them, but not just having one 
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:11 PM
p.2 #4Beware Radioactive Lenses
Surely if any older lens emitted any significant amount of radiation it would have fogged the film in the camera?
Film - remember that - we used to put it into cameras in the old days!
Film - remember that - we used to put it into cameras in the old days!
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:15 PM
p.2 #5Beware Radioactive Lenses
While I wouldn't worry to much about using a lens with this minute level of radioactivity, everyone who is saying 'don't worry' is glossing over the bit that it's your eye receiving the dose of alphas, which are normally stopped by the skin. It does matter how localized and where a does is delivered, as is evident in the bit above about smoking. Just something to keep in mind.
But yeah, this is a pretty tiny dosage. And we are still unsure if small dosages of radiation due contribute to cancer. There's the linear hypothesis and a competing view that says below a certain threshold, radiation isn't harmful (to very coarsely summarize). Again, this would be a TINY dose. A dose of 20 rem increases your chances of getting cancer by about 0.8%. The chances of dying of cancer from unknown causes is about 20%.
And living in Colorado compared to the east coast gives you a pretty big boost in background radiation. Just so you know. Might want to move :P
But yeah, this is a pretty tiny dosage. And we are still unsure if small dosages of radiation due contribute to cancer. There's the linear hypothesis and a competing view that says below a certain threshold, radiation isn't harmful (to very coarsely summarize). Again, this would be a TINY dose. A dose of 20 rem increases your chances of getting cancer by about 0.8%. The chances of dying of cancer from unknown causes is about 20%.
And living in Colorado compared to the east coast gives you a pretty big boost in background radiation. Just so you know. Might want to move :P
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:19 PM
p.2 #6Beware Radioactive Lenses
A lot of places list the radiation as alpha particles, which if you look at the Harvard link, you can see that the machine used wasn't particularly sensitive to alpha radiation. So this is likely gamma and beta radiation. Gamma can go through the metal on the end of the geiger counter. So that is a threat.
Personally I find the 3000 millirem a year for 80 years only increasing your risk by 10% rather hard to believe. I have seen claims in older textbooks that set the bar much lower to raise risk, I believe it was 70 some millirems to increase it by 2%, I'll have to check.
There are definitely jobs where you will likely get more at work than you would from a camera lens. But why would I want to raise my risk when I like zuiko lenses which don't tend to have thorium elements anyway? Plus I tend to carry lenses in my hand and pockets where doses would be higher. Like Aham said, I don't want the extra exposure, all of which is currently considered an extra risk to be avoided.
I read a lot on the internet, and a lot of it seemed crap. No surprise there I suppose. So I did a lot of research and thought I would share what I found. If you don't use lenses much, and don't carry them in your hand or pocket, you lower your risk. The numbers above are for that lens. If you have a more active lens, more risk.
If you have an active lens, you increase your radiation dose. If you have a really active lens, you increase it even more. And it varies, the same lens can have radioactive and non radioactive samples.
As far as why some and how many people get sick, that is a big subject, basically some people are more sensitive to a disease/pathogen some less. Then it depends on how much of that disease/pathogen one is exposed to as to your odds. So yes, I am sure some people used these for years and never noticed any trouble. I also suspect it harmed a few people, granted, a small minority.
I am rightly concerned about this, not paranoid. If people want to expose themselves to this, and know the risks, however small, that is fine. If they don't know the risks and get an ignorant exposure, that is a problem.
I would be interested to know how cellphones expose one to radiation. I was thinking these were microwave, which is a much longer and less powerful wavelength than gamma radiation.
Personally I find the 3000 millirem a year for 80 years only increasing your risk by 10% rather hard to believe. I have seen claims in older textbooks that set the bar much lower to raise risk, I believe it was 70 some millirems to increase it by 2%, I'll have to check.
There are definitely jobs where you will likely get more at work than you would from a camera lens. But why would I want to raise my risk when I like zuiko lenses which don't tend to have thorium elements anyway? Plus I tend to carry lenses in my hand and pockets where doses would be higher. Like Aham said, I don't want the extra exposure, all of which is currently considered an extra risk to be avoided.
I read a lot on the internet, and a lot of it seemed crap. No surprise there I suppose. So I did a lot of research and thought I would share what I found. If you don't use lenses much, and don't carry them in your hand or pocket, you lower your risk. The numbers above are for that lens. If you have a more active lens, more risk.
If you have an active lens, you increase your radiation dose. If you have a really active lens, you increase it even more. And it varies, the same lens can have radioactive and non radioactive samples.
As far as why some and how many people get sick, that is a big subject, basically some people are more sensitive to a disease/pathogen some less. Then it depends on how much of that disease/pathogen one is exposed to as to your odds. So yes, I am sure some people used these for years and never noticed any trouble. I also suspect it harmed a few people, granted, a small minority.
I am rightly concerned about this, not paranoid. If people want to expose themselves to this, and know the risks, however small, that is fine. If they don't know the risks and get an ignorant exposure, that is a problem.
I would be interested to know how cellphones expose one to radiation. I was thinking these were microwave, which is a much longer and less powerful wavelength than gamma radiation.
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:23 PM
p.2 #7Beware Radioactive Lenses
Me thinks someone wants to buy a bunch of old FD and m42 lenses on the cheap.
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:27 PM
p.2 #8Beware Radioactive Lenses
AmbientMike wrote:
But why would I want to raise my risk when I like zuiko lenses which don't tend to have thorium elements anyway?
i know the zuiko 55/1.2 does, not sure about others.
if anybody is worried about exposure i'll be happy to take any radioactive lenses off their hands (you only have to pay for shipping).
But why would I want to raise my risk when I like zuiko lenses which don't tend to have thorium elements anyway?
i know the zuiko 55/1.2 does, not sure about others.
if anybody is worried about exposure i'll be happy to take any radioactive lenses off their hands (you only have to pay for shipping).
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:37 PM
p.2 #9Beware Radioactive Lenses
Might be worth noting that the manufacturing processes that incorporated these isotopes into lenses were discontinued NOT because of the danger to worker or consumer from radiation but instead from danger of heavy metal toxicity (non radioactive) to workers in lens factories.
Aggressive use of hot lenses is like getting 5-10 chest X-rays a year, and few use their lenses that much. Also, that amount of radiation is not a big deal, especially small amounts over time.
By contrast, every time you have a CT-scan or heart stress test, you receive a dose of radiation that puts your lifetime odds of getting a lethal cancer at 1 in 1000. Sadly, most docs and even most radiologists don't know that and write ct scan orders as fast as dentists pass out lollipops.
Jim
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 02:43 PM · View previous versions
Aggressive use of hot lenses is like getting 5-10 chest X-rays a year, and few use their lenses that much. Also, that amount of radiation is not a big deal, especially small amounts over time.
By contrast, every time you have a CT-scan or heart stress test, you receive a dose of radiation that puts your lifetime odds of getting a lethal cancer at 1 in 1000. Sadly, most docs and even most radiologists don't know that and write ct scan orders as fast as dentists pass out lollipops.
Jim
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 02:43 PM · View previous versions
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:42 PM
p.2 #10Beware Radioactive Lenses
Why am I guessing Sebboh works for argonne or fermilab?
It all depends on the type of radiation. Alas, I'll take any 5D compatible one's that our friend above finds too heavy/cumbersome for his rig
It all depends on the type of radiation. Alas, I'll take any 5D compatible one's that our friend above finds too heavy/cumbersome for his rig
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:42 PM
p.2 #11Beware Radioactive Lenses
Dentists... lollipops?
Good for business, I guess. Only in America, as they say.
Good for business, I guess. Only in America, as they say.
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:48 PM
p.2 #12Beware Radioactive Lenses
I collect data at the Argonne accelerator a dozen or so times a year, but I am far more creeped out by what messages from outer space the white deer are getting by standing next to the giant satellite dishes than I am the radiation.
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:49 PM
p.2 #13Beware Radioactive Lenses
cogitech wrote:
Dentists... lollipops?
Good for business, I guess. Only in America, as they say.
No one seems bothered by that but imagine the reaction people would have if cardiologists passed out a stick of butter!
Dentists... lollipops?
Good for business, I guess. Only in America, as they say.
No one seems bothered by that but imagine the reaction people would have if cardiologists passed out a stick of butter!
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:50 PM
p.2 #14Beware Radioactive Lenses
cogitech could you repost link? http://prfamerica.org/RadioactivityInCigaretteSmoke.html
gives 404 not found error.
This website gives some of the same info but lists exposure at 8000 millirem/year.
http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html
Didn't realize there was this much radiation exposure from smoking. Granted, the alpha particles don't travel far, although localized doses can be extremely high.
I do not believe you have to get anywhere near the ld50 to expose yourself to risks. Also, I would avoid carrying these in your pocket due to reproductive risks if you are of child conceiving/bearing age.
If people want to expose themselves to this, that is their business, but they need to be aware of risks. I stop short of saying I will never buy a radioactive lens, but at this time it seems unnecessary, although I do like old m42 gear.
We are exposed to radiation every day, and I don't know that I would go quite this far myself, but look around for yourself and see, all radiation exposure is currently considered a risk by different authorities. Caveat Emptor.
gives 404 not found error.
This website gives some of the same info but lists exposure at 8000 millirem/year.
http://www.lycaeum.org/~sputnik/Drugs/THC/Health/cancer.rad.html
Didn't realize there was this much radiation exposure from smoking. Granted, the alpha particles don't travel far, although localized doses can be extremely high.
I do not believe you have to get anywhere near the ld50 to expose yourself to risks. Also, I would avoid carrying these in your pocket due to reproductive risks if you are of child conceiving/bearing age.
If people want to expose themselves to this, that is their business, but they need to be aware of risks. I stop short of saying I will never buy a radioactive lens, but at this time it seems unnecessary, although I do like old m42 gear.
We are exposed to radiation every day, and I don't know that I would go quite this far myself, but look around for yourself and see, all radiation exposure is currently considered a risk by different authorities. Caveat Emptor.
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:55 PM
p.2 #15Beware Radioactive Lenses
Todd, I knew somebody would think this! sebboh, the 55/1.2 has the potential to have this? might pass on that one or get it tested if I get one. I think it would be very difficult to get as much as a cat scan from a lens. And I think the cat scan would be more over the whole body.
Some people use their gear a lot around here I suspect, so thought I would bring it up. Seemed to be a lot of not so good stuff on the internet, Harvard and the Nureg document seem more reliable.
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 03:01 PM · View previous versions
sebboh, the 55/1.2 has the potential to have this? might pass on that one or get it tested if I get one. I think it would be very difficult to get as much as a cat scan from a lens. And I think the cat scan would be more over the whole body. Some people use their gear a lot around here I suspect, so thought I would bring it up. Seemed to be a lot of not so good stuff on the internet, Harvard and the Nureg document seem more reliable.
Edited on Dec 17, 2010 at 03:01 PM · View previous versions
Dec 17, 2010 at 02:59 PM
p.2 #16Beware Radioactive Lenses
AmbientMike wrote:
Personally I find the 3000 millirem a year for 80 years only increasing your risk by 10% rather hard to believe.
Must be wrong then if you find it hard to believe No really, I don't know the validity of that statement one way or another.
Here's a current source: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council).
If scroll to the near the end of page 15, you'll see that the increase in cancer cases in men (for example) from a 0.1 gray dose (10 rem) is 800, resulting in 400 deaths. This is out of a 100,000 people, with the baseline cancer cases and deaths being 45,500 and 22,100 respectively.
Microwaves aren't ionizing radiation so they are much less worrisome then ionizing radiation like x-rays, etc.
Personally I find the 3000 millirem a year for 80 years only increasing your risk by 10% rather hard to believe.
Must be wrong then if you find it hard to believe
No really, I don't know the validity of that statement one way or another.Here's a current source: Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation (National Research Council).
If scroll to the near the end of page 15, you'll see that the increase in cancer cases in men (for example) from a 0.1 gray dose (10 rem) is 800, resulting in 400 deaths. This is out of a 100,000 people, with the baseline cancer cases and deaths being 45,500 and 22,100 respectively.
Microwaves aren't ionizing radiation so they are much less worrisome then ionizing radiation like x-rays, etc.
Dec 17, 2010 at 03:01 PM
p.2 #17Beware Radioactive Lenses
The training I've received several times from health physicists at LLNL is that because α-emissions have such shallow penetration depths, they're pretty benign on the outside of the body--likely absorbed or bounced off the dead skin. On the inside they're like a bowling ball wreaking havoc. Gamma's on the other hand are likely to pass right through you, given their high penetration depths, but statistically do more harm.
Moral of the story: don't eat alpha emitters.
Moral of the story: don't eat alpha emitters.
Dec 17, 2010 at 03:04 PM
p.2 #18Beware Radioactive Lenses
AmbientMike wrote:
I do not believe you have to get anywhere near the ld50 to expose yourself to risks.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement. I think the LD50 dose is somewhere around 400 rem. No one is advocating dosages of 200 rem, 50 rem, 10 rem, or even 1 rem. 1 mrem (or less) is a bit different.
I do not believe you have to get anywhere near the ld50 to expose yourself to risks.
I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement. I think the LD50 dose is somewhere around 400 rem. No one is advocating dosages of 200 rem, 50 rem, 10 rem, or even 1 rem. 1 mrem (or less) is a bit different.
Dec 17, 2010 at 03:06 PM
p.2 #19Beware Radioactive Lenses
kidtexas: Why of course if I don't understand it it must not be true haha I'm not worried about 1 millirem, myself, although I suppose it is a risk, but if I got an extra 75 millirem/year off a lens, I'd worry. Although after reading that, wow, that is a massive dose, and seemingly small occurance, 800 extra out of about 45,000. If I read that table right, 45% of males will have cancer in their lifetime. Is that true?
Thinking microwaves are longer than visible light, which I'm exposed to all the time. UV probably much more dangerous. Plus I hate talking on the phone
Daniel: Good Idea!
haha I'm not worried about 1 millirem, myself, although I suppose it is a risk, but if I got an extra 75 millirem/year off a lens, I'd worry. Although after reading that, wow, that is a massive dose, and seemingly small occurance, 800 extra out of about 45,000. If I read that table right, 45% of males will have cancer in their lifetime. Is that true?Thinking microwaves are longer than visible light, which I'm exposed to all the time. UV probably much more dangerous. Plus I hate talking on the phone
Daniel: Good Idea!
Dec 17, 2010 at 03:10 PM
p.2 #20Beware Radioactive Lenses
Hmm, I might have extra access to the book since I'm at an academic institution. I quoted the relevant statistics though. Extra cases of getting cancer out of 100,000 from 10 rem is 800 (0.8% increase), extra cases resulting in death is 400 (0.4% increase). The baseline percentages of cancer is 44%/22% for cases/death.
Also: "At doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans."
Also: "At doses less than 40 times the average yearly background exposure (100 mSv), statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans."
Dec 17, 2010 at 03:34 PM