It's Radioactive.

[RCap]

<p>Below is a recently acquired Kodak Signet 80. I need to clean it up, however I wanted to use it first. The 50mm f/2.8 Ektanar is supposedly slightly radioactive. Somebody at work will be bringing in a geiger counter so they we can check that out. I have another body with the 50mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2.5 and 90mm f/4 lenses on the way.<br /><br>

My Kodak Signet 80.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>This is my towns volunteer first aid squad building. Must have been a castle in a previous like. All shots are Kodak Gold 200 film that was on sale at CVS.<br>

1.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>Here is a shot of a restaurant in the local park.<br>

2.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>Another local park, with boaters on the lake.<br>

3.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>A walk around tghe corner from my house brings me to the plant exchange. This place is always good for color and camera testing.<br>

4.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>Some more stuff at the plant exchange.<br>

5.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>Here is a mistake. I don't know how this happened, the shutter takes some pressure to release.<br>

6.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>OOps! </p>

[RCap]

<p>Post collision.<br>

8.</p>

<div></div>

[RCap]

<p>All in all a fun camera for $13.50. I am looking forward to receiving the 35 and 90 lenses.<br>

One last picture.<br>

9.</p>

<div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Responded a little quickly, above...Different time zones can be a bit confusing! That Ektanar performs very well,<strong> Raymond</strong>; crisp detail, good colour rendition, perhaps a hint of vignetting? I envy your acquisition of the full kit; quite apart from being highly collectible, they seem to be a very fine camera to use. I look forward to seeing pics both of and from your new outfit. And in today's world I wouldn't worry too much about the tiny amount of radiation the lens may emit!</p>

[donnie_strickland]

<p>Very nice pics! That's a kit I've had my eye on for a long time...</p>

[RCap]

<p>@Rick, I am pleased with the Signet 80 and Ektanar. I have another one that appears to be in better condition. However it is missing the rewind knob assembly, also the shutter speeds appear to be off compared to the one I used. I am looking forward to getting the 35 and 90 lenses. The ergonomics of the camera seems odd, I need to turn the camera over to change aperture setting.<br />@Donnie, thanks. I am looking forward to receiving the new kit.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Great shots. That Ektanar is a real sharp lens. Thanks for posting.</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>That's what I call Sharpness... Beautiful pictures!</p>

[tom_price1]

Nice results from that camera, and the way things are going, the Signet will be below background readings before too

long.

[gene m]

<p>Very cool camera.</p>

[tim_bradshaw1]

<p>If it was radioactive at any significant level it would fog the film. So it probably isn't (well, I suppose it might be a beta emitter in which case you're probably not worried unless you intend to eat it).</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I really developed a dislike of the Signet 35 after being forced to use it in the field -- the only camera I've ever actively disliked. However, I got and shot its successor, the Signet 40, some time back and found it usable, if not "ergonomic". If I ever get another Signet, it would be this one, the 80, however. Its design is a classic of the period.</p>

<p>Like so many of these cameras, in the right hands, like yours, it can produce results like your Adirondack chairs, which I find particularly nice.</p>

<p>I wouldn't sleep for years with this thing in my crotch, but otherwise, I suspect you're getting more radiation from the recent events in Japan than from the lens. I'm also encouraged that you could find the lenses that fit it. ;)</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/cameralens.htm</p>

<p>'Measurements have indicated that the exposure rate at a depth of 10 cm in the body of an individual carrying a camera containing 0.36 uCi of thorium would be approximately 0.01 mrem/hr. Based on this value, NUREG-1717 calculated that <strong>a serious photographer might receive an annual exposure of 2 mrem. This assumed that the photographer carried the camera 30 days per year and for 6 hours per day.</strong> They also estimated an exposure of 0.7 mrem per year for an average photographer. If the camera lens contained the maximum permitted concentration of thorium (30%), NUREG-1717 estimated that <strong>the aforementioned annual doses could triple</strong>.'</p>

<p>2 mrem is probably less than you'd get from a transatlantic flight (usually quoted as 2.5 mrem), or a chest X-ray (maybe 10 mrem). You get about 1 mrem per day in the normal way of things, mostly from natural sources. Thoriated lenses can be hot enough to fog film eventually, so it might be worth removing the lens when storing a loaded camera. These lenses shouldn't be used as loupes - when held that close, the dose to the eye could be significant.</p>

[RCap]

<p>Thanks all, I usually don't let film last in a camera more then a few days. As far as how radioactive the lens is some guy at work said he would bring his geiger counter in tomorrow to test whether the lens is really radioactive. I work with a bunch of technical geeks, myself included.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

Glad to see you get such good results. That 50mm is a tack sharp optic! Only the 50mm and the 35mm are radioactive. You

might want to check out my post from last month to see al the lenses in action:

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00YOZc

[RCap]

<p>I had the lens measured today, the highest reading I got was 0.84 μSv/h. This was with the measuring device right on the lens. It went down appreciably about an inch away to 0.015 μSv/h. Seeing that I am not using the lens as a loupe, I am not too concerned. It was fun validating that the lens is radioactive.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Thorium emits alpha particles which are the least penetrating form of radiation. A few sheets of paper should stop them. The metal shutter blades should block the alpha emissions from the lens. Here is the reaction (if it will display properly) ²³²Th₉₀ → ²²⁸Ra₈₈+ ⁴He₂</p>