In article , whunter <whunterjr@xxxxxxxx> writes
Swore I was going to quit this discourse of misappropriated facts, but
you 'Got me!!!'......
On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 07:54 PM, John Hudson wrote:
To enjoy and be informed of the answer, suggest you visit the library
for a book about the radium dial painters of the early 1900s. Because
of this tragedy, the use of radium in virtually all consumer products
from watches to 'snake oil' potions was prohibited by the 1950s.
Insofar as no answer was given I suspect that the radioactive toxicity
of
camera lenses is no more perilous than a luminous watch
Exactly +++, since radium decay does generate some gamma radiation and
your exposure is a lot closer and constant compared to a lens
That is not, and never has been the issue Bill - and you damned well
know it!
I doubt that the wrist watch would be much closer to your vital organs
following breathing in or otherwise ingesting any of the dust produced
by this exercise:
http://www.hermes.net.au/bayling/repair.html
That procedure, or more generally that type of irresponsible action, is
the hazard this thread has concerned. I would not, nor I hope would
you, suggest a similar exercise with a luminous dial either!
I have made NO suggestion at any time that any significant hazard exists
with the lens in its normal operating state! However, once pulverised
to dust, there exists a serious hazard which your obfuscation with myth
and mystery does nothing to reduce - indeed your action merely increases
the likelihood that others will follow suit, precisely what my warning
was intended to avoid!
Despite your claims to the contrary, first that the discoloration is in
the coating and then that it is a chemical decomposition in the lens
bulk, the US based National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements specifically recognises the presence of radioactive
materials is photographic lenses and specifically warns against the use
of such lenses as an eyepiece - how much worse if it is pulverised and
some material inadvertently ingested?
You may continue to bury your head in the sand over the risks Bill, but
your attempts to conceal the risks from others is as irresponsible as
the idiot who published the suggestion of smashing radioactive lenses in
the first place.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|