I have a few questions about the list. Where is my Canon 35/2 FD SSC (1st version)? Doesn't that one count anymore? Where is the Aero Ektar? When a lens shows the same amount of radiation as normal background radiation, how do you test that and what good is the test? Why is the Canon 35/2 New FD also an excellent lens even though it does not seem to contain any radioactive elements?
I prepared a test of radioactivity on majority of my lenses.
Thorium emits alpha particles that only travel an inch or two and in the very small quantitys of Thorium that may be in a lens can't penetrate human skin.
Interesting. I have one the schneider xenar. Never knew it was a hot lens. Cool
I do not care if it is. It is not worth the effort to panic. zzzzzzzzzzzzz
So what is the conclusion? Some lenses are radioactive, nothing new under the sun, eveyone knows that. But what are the possible effects if I use one or the other lens? Without such conclusion, sorry, I consider this thread as a tempest in a teapot since it does not teach me anything.
This guy shot with a Pentax Spotmatic F and the 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar. Need more be said?
View attachment 100145
So what is the conclusion? Some lenses are radioactive, nothing new under the sun, eveyone knows that. But what are the possible effects if I use one or the other lens? Without such conclusion, sorry, I consider this thread as a tempest in a teapot since it does not teach me anything.
The conclusion is that the radioactivity of the lenses is far too small to worry about. The average worldwide background radiation, which your body gets every day, is at a rate of 2.4 milliSieverts per year (2,400,000 nSv per year); that's about 274 nSv you get per hour just for being on the planet. Some of those lenses were above the background radiation level, but you're not with those lenses 24 hours a day, every day. Several organizations have estimated a 5-hour cross-country flight as giving you 40 microSieverts (40,000 nSv) which is 40x what the "hot" lens is giving you.
I guess hot is not really hot at all with consumer lenses.
Interestingly this reminds me of some photos taken after the meltdown at Chernobyl of inside the structure of the elephants foot, with that much radiation it was still just a little fogging on the images. But I don't think anyone would want use that camera again.
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-chernobyl-disaster-1986/
Alpha particle that Thorium emits only have a very short range of an inch or two so if on your camera wouldn't penetrate the shutter curtain, I have left my Canon 35mm f2 Thorium lens on a camera with 400 ISO film in it for several months in the past with no ill effects.I remember seeing photos taken by someone who went up on the roof with the "liquidators" (who had a few seconds to scoop up a shovel load of reactor debris and fling it over the edge). Along the bottom edge of the images were lots of little grains/specks, caused by the radiation coming from the debris they were walking over.
I've left film in my Spotmatic and Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 for months before now, it showed no signs of fogging or graining afterwards. While I don't sleep near the lens (it hangs on the back of the spare room door) I'm not worried.
If they were really dangerous I'd expect to see a spike in cancers amongst pro photographers of the era.
However, given how common smoking was at the time these lenses were in widespread production and use I think you might have trouble with the statistics!
The Surgeon General has it all wrong you know. Smoking does NOT cause cancer! R. J. Reynolds even said so and Philip Morris even backed old R.J. up. So, light'em up! John W
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?