andrew_spence1 Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 guys i bought a mamiya DSX 1000 slr recently and its due to arrive in the next few days it has the mamiya sekor 55mm f1.s x lens on it. Is it a radioactive lens gdf2009 on a youtube link from camerpedia shows it gives a reading of 6.03uSv/h , compared to 42.7 uSv/h from an Ashi SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 for comparison. But an administrator called vintageslrs on The Camera Colector Website tested states the sekor has normal levels. What do u think , is 6.03 uSv/h anything to worry about if it is indeed radioactive. regards Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 Apparently there are different versions of the lens, but see LINK: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_van_Nooij Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 Don't worry about radioactive lenses, unless you're determined to lick it or glue it on an open wound continuously for about a year or two. Then you might start feeling the effects of radiation poisoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 There is nothing to worry about in any case - radioactive or not. You get more gamma rays from just living in the earth's atmosphere, and depending on where you live the rock substrate beneath you may be dosing you up as well. Uninformed people fear what they don't understand and take it to extremes. The amount of radioactive emissions from lenses is virtually insignificant, as Rick suggests above. Get over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuart_pratt Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 As above,but nonetheless, keep an eye out for the growth of a 6th finger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_drawbridge Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 And then there's cellphones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) And then there's cellphones... - Cellphones don't emit ionising radiation, but if you're worried a tinfoil hat can turn a few heads in admiration. "The amount of radioactive emissions from lenses is virtually insignificant,.." - You might not say that if you witnessed the several hundred Geiger counts/second you get from an old Aero-Ektar..... and on the other side of a lead brick too! Likewise a 14" Cooke Apotal repro lens. Both use Thorium doped glass. But a consumer grade SLR lens? Maybe not so hot. The particle count shown in the link above could easily be exceeded by pointing the detector at a pair of well-worn socks. Edited December 11, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 On the other hand there's Cobalt-Thorium G :rolleyes: sorry about that, but when I've sat at the computer too long, my whimsey gets out of hand) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 (edited) On the other hand there's Cobalt-Thorium G :rolleyes: - Actually not too far from the truth JDM. Thorium 232 itself is an alpha emitter, but among its daughter products is a gamma emitter. So while Thorium-glass lenses were moderately harmless when new, in that their alpha emmission was easily stopped by air or a thin metal lenscap; over time the decay products build up to present quite a gamma-ray hazard that'll pass through almost anything. Those old Aero Ektar and Apotal lenses were produced over 70 years ago now, and have turned into quite nasty gamma emitters. There's just a slight underestimation of timescale in that Dr Strangelove clip. The half-life of Thorium 232 is over 14 billion years! Edited December 11, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_spence1 Posted December 16, 2018 Author Share Posted December 16, 2018 guys thanks for all your comment it ended up that the light meter was faulty so i returned it and got a refund Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now