Test - Are Vintage Lenses Really Radioactive?

[Mattias Burling]

 

Sweden, like most European countries, definitely does not have the extent of freedom of speech granted by the First Amendment in the U.S. I'm just mentioning this here because many people on this forum are not from Europe and would therefore completely mistake your statement.

Please stop, you use some BS article as a source???

I have lived in America, I went to school there.
I have lived for 30 years in Sweden, I was born here.
I am a working journalist since 15 years, a real journalist, not some blogger.

That Sweden has a greater extent of freedom of speech than the USA is a fact. 
You will have to give me way more than a link to one of the internets most notorious BS sites to prove me wrong. I suggest you just drop it because you are making a fool of your self.

Also I want to know which Swedish broadcasters you have worked for.If you haven't worked for none, well that just means you have no authority to claim my statement was false.

Also its off topic and you are merely spamming the thread.

(BTW, Told two of my friends about your statements and they burst into laughter.)

[cantsin]

A real journalist? Your video would get you fired from any journalism school if you were a student there.

No, you're publishing borderline irresponsible stuff - and I am not the only person here who tries to get this across to you. Get some common sense. 

My point about the difference between U.S. First Amendment and Swedish anti-defamation laws ("Hets mot folkgrupp" ) is absolutely valid. Argue on facts and not the laughter of buddies.

[Mattias Burling]

A real journalist? Your video would get you fired from any journalism school if you were a student there.

No, you're publishing borderline irresponsible stuff - and I am not the only person here who tries to get this across to you. Get some common sense. 

My point about the difference between U.S. First Amendment and Swedish anti-defamation laws ("Hets mot folkgrupp" ) is absolutely valid. Argue on facts and not the laughter of buddies.

I say it again, please stop.

You need to read up on this because you are spreading false information as facts.

And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Just Stop.

[Cinegain]

Hum...

Probably shot on something like this:

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Long, looong comprehensive discussion here. In short, radioactivity of old photographic lenses have no practical hazardous effect on health, it can be ignored.

[Nikkor]

Long, looong comprehensive discussion here. In short, radioactivity of old photographic lenses have no practical hazardous effect on health, it can be ignored.

So even if you ingest particles from it, it's not a problem?

[cantsin]

You need to read up on this because you are spreading false information as facts.

And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Just Stop.

Saying that somebody is spreading false information without substantiating your argument is not exactly good debate culture, and you've avoided any factual statement so far. Your only argument has been that my positions are "ridiculous", and your request to stop is nothing but patronizing. To your defense, I think it is simply possible that we misunderstood each other and that you were mistaking my points on limits of freedom of speech as points on limits of freedom of press - which are two different issues. (And Sweden has a stellar record in freedom of press, no doubt about it.) For those in this thread who want to form their own opinion, here's a source that you surely won't dispute, namely the website of the Swedish parliament, which explains the concept of freedom of expression in your country. Americans will note that it differs quite a lot from the one granted by the First Amendment in the U.S.:

https://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/Democracy/The-Constitution/The-Fundamental-Law-on-Freedom-of-Expression/

[richg101]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.  I'd happily eat my 55mm/1.2 olympus lens (which measures radioactivity due to its thorium content).  Someone send over some money to replace the lens and I'll film myself eating each element for all to see.

[Mattias Burling]

Saying that somebody is spreading false information without substantiating your argument is not exactly good debate culture, and you've avoided any factual statement so far. Your only argument has been that my positions are "ridiculous", and your request to stop is nothing but patronizing. To your defense, I think it is simply possible that we misunderstood each other and that you were mistaking my points on limits of freedom of speech as points on limits of freedom of press - which are two different issues. (And Sweden has a stellar record in freedom of press, no doubt about it.) For those in this thread who want to form their own opinion, here's a source that you surely won't dispute, namely the website of the Swedish parliament, which explains the concept of freedom of expression in your country. Americans will note that it differs quite a lot from the one granted by the First Amendment in the U.S.:

https://www.riksdagen.se/en/How-the-Riksdag-works/Democracy/The-Constitution/The-Fundamental-Law-on-Freedom-of-Expression/

You don't even answer questions, so there is no debate.

Please stop spamming.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again.  I'd happily eat my 55mm/1.2 olympus lens (which measures radioactivity due to its thorium content).  Someone send over some money to replace the lens and I'll film myself eating each element for all to see.

I might start a Kickstarter for this.

[Flynn]

I always give Mattias a thumbs up on his vids but on this one I didn't vote as I think those who argue there might be a danger with some vintage lenses are more likely to be correct. Still, I did laugh at the scientific chart Mattias included, so thanks for that, and I don't think he deserves to be attacked for the vid- I disagree with him about a vid, it's not the end of the world. I wish everyone would chill out and dial down the outrage.

[Damphousse]

Alright yes I was serious about the nuclear stuff, but that was because I assumed that it was because I thought that you guys did not know it was not safe for stuff to be mailed here that was at high levels of radiation.

No one said anything about "high levels of radiation."  This forum thing would go a lot better if you actually read the thread before posting.

Zach it would also be helpful if you would just admit when you are wrong and withdraw your erroneous statements.  From the beginning of this thread I never sought to control what anyone did or did not do with their lenses.  All I suggested was we post things that are factually true.  You and Mattais' statement that all lenses must be safe because the government doesn't regulate them was demonstrated in grand fashion to be a false premise.  It is totally okay to admit you are wrong.  No one will think less of you.  I will let you in on a little secret, until I posted proof that there is a vibrant unregulated online aftermarket in glow in the dark radioactive uranium dinnerware I guarantee you no one else who has posted in this thread knew about it either.  You and Mattais are not idiots or anything.  It is totally normal.  Most people don't know about it.  And anyway the government shouldn't regulate EVERY threat out there.  They have a tendency to really muck stuff up when they get into areas they don't understand and have a knee jerk reaction just to appease certain voters or big business.... or worst of all religious zealots.

And by the way I am American.  Add that to the list of things you are wrong about... unless you wish to argue about my citizenship as well.  I know 15% of Americans like to argue about that kind of thing.

[ricardo_sousa11]

Did you use Lut to grade ? That footage looks great ! If so, care to share which lut you used ?

[Mattias Burling]

Did you use Lut to grade ? That footage looks great ! If so, care to share which lut you used ?

Yes, it was one of the Osiris once. Cant remember which exactlly.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I have no idea how lenses developed a discussion on international rights of speech Trust me both the united states and sweden are blessed with a generous amount of freedom of expression and if any of you care to give me a visit here you'd understand, where I was constantly harassed and arrested by the ''national security bureau'' for ''Displaying dangerous atheism thoughts on forums'' in a Muslim state. Yes that's actually a crime. In fact, the official constitutional law here sentences me to death if it shall be made public that I don't believe in God, so I have to keep it to myself or face social and legal consequences, to the point of spending hours a week in Mosques just to follow tradition. Trust me when I say, you're both blessed =D Whenever I am in Europe or the USA I feel as if a burden was lift of my chest and I can smell the air freely and be who I am. It's wonderful. Back of topic of lenses radioactivity: .

@Mattias There is a countless number of photographic lenses out there that do have high levels of radioactivity, it's a fact, and while the video is funny testing one/two lenses with a 3.5mm geiger meter with a phone app should not be taken by people as proof that old lenses contain zero radioactivity, that's the incorrect message that viewers will come out with, so I would clearly flag it for humor, saying that many lenses do contain radioactive elements. Just to be sure no one takes it seriously. 

@Rich Don't eat you Olympus please.

I know it's humor but just to give some real information:

On a serious note, really I would not ingest it, lick it, taste it. The harmless nature of vintage lenses' thorium radioactivity is due to human skin, we are practically wearing a completely sealed, 100% tight, praticle-proof vest covering 98% of our body surface area, no risk at all of handling and using and storing these lenses. The particles emitted from radioactive lenses cannot penetrate farther than the outer-most dead layer of skin that you wash out everyday. 

However, once you remove the vest (skin) you are exposing extremely sensitive epithelium that small lenses radioactive particles can destroy many active cells. Hence, in layman terms the radioactivity of lenses is only harmful if they come in contact with non skin-covered areas of ones's body for a long time (Eyes, oral cavity, rectum, inner ear, exposed injuries, to a degree tattoos, and of course inside the body). So aside from the extremely damaging nature of ingesting glass (you can return it to powder state before eating to avoid the physical damage), the radiation of an old lens can and will cause harmfull effects when swallowed. One lens, depending on how it measures, and depending on where it will land, will most probably cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, and two/three lenses could result in a small ulcer, which is pretty annoying.

Bottom line, these lenses have ZERO harm on you, unless ingested or stored in a body cavity (Which I understand why we would all want to do that but just avoid it with vintage glass, do it with nice modern L primes or something)

What caught our attention here when we were researching this was the notion that  some camera viewfinders contained the same glass radioactivity, which is a case that's really worth studying and should be the one to speak of, due to the obvious nature of using viewfinders in contact with exposed eyes for extremely long periods of times. However, we couldn't find any models or information on this. So if they do exist, in vintage or new cameras, it'd be extremely helpful if anyone knows anything about these cameras to truly avoid using them altogether having a potential real hazard on human health. We'd be glad to publish about it in scientific journals if they do exist. 

[Mattias Burling]

 

@Mattias There is a countless number of photographic lenses out there that do have high levels of radioactivity, it's a fact, and while the video is funny testing one/two lenses with a 3.5mm geiger meter with a phone app should not be taken by people as proof that old lenses contain zero radioactivity, that's the incorrect message that viewers will come out with, so I would clearly flag it for humor, saying that many lenses do contain radioactive elements. Just to be sure no one takes it seriously. 

 

Sorry, I won't treat my viewers like little kids. Zero people outside this forum have mistaken it as serious. Every single person outside eoshd gets that its a joke. Why it's only in this place I leave to a psychologist to explain

[bamigoreng]

I have no idea how lenses developed a discussion on international rights of speech Trust me both the united states and sweden are blessed with a generous amount of freedom of expression and if any of you care to give me a visit here you'd understand, where I was constantly harassed and arrested by the ''national security bureau'' for ''Displaying dangerous atheism thoughts on forums'' in a Muslim state. Yes that's actually a crime. In fact, the official constitutional law here sentences me to death if it shall be made public that I don't believe in God, so I have to keep it to myself or face social and legal consequences, to the point of spending hours a week in Mosques just to follow tradition. Trust me when I say, you're both blessed =D Whenever I am in Europe or the USA I feel as if a burden was lift of my chest and I can smell the air freely and be who I am. It's wonderful. Back of topic of lenses radioactivity: .

@Mattias There is a countless number of photographic lenses out there that do have high levels of radioactivity, it's a fact, and while the video is funny testing one/two lenses with a 3.5mm geiger meter with a phone app should not be taken by people as proof that old lenses contain zero radioactivity, that's the incorrect message that viewers will come out with, so I would clearly flag it for humor, saying that many lenses do contain radioactive elements. Just to be sure no one takes it seriously. 

@Rich Don't eat you Olympus please.

I know it's humor but just to give some real information:

On a serious note, really I would not ingest it, lick it, taste it. The harmless nature of vintage lenses' thorium radioactivity is due to human skin, we are practically wearing a completely sealed, 100% tight, praticle-proof vest covering 98% of our body surface area, no risk at all of handling and using and storing these lenses. The particles emitted from radioactive lenses cannot penetrate farther than the outer-most dead layer of skin that you wash out everyday. 

However, once you remove the vest (skin) you are exposing extremely sensitive epithelium that small lenses radioactive particles can destroy many active cells. Hence, in layman terms the radioactivity of lenses is only harmful if they come in contact with non skin-covered areas of ones's body for a long time (Eyes, oral cavity, rectum, inner ear, exposed injuries, to a degree tattoos, and of course inside the body). So aside from the extremely damaging nature of ingesting glass (you can return it to powder state before eating to avoid the physical damage), the radiation of an old lens can and will cause harmfull effects when swallowed. One lens, depending on how it measures, and depending on where it will land, will most probably cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, and two/three lenses could result in a small ulcer, which is pretty annoying.

Bottom line, these lenses have ZERO harm on you, unless ingested or stored in a body cavity (Which I understand why we would all want to do that but just avoid it with vintage glass, do it with nice modern L primes or something)

What caught our attention here when we were researching this was the notion that  some camera viewfinders contained the same glass radioactivity, which is a case that's really worth studying and should be the one to speak of, due to the obvious nature of using viewfinders in contact with exposed eyes for extremely long periods of times. However, we couldn't find any models or information on this. So if they do exist, in vintage or new cameras, it'd be extremely helpful if anyone knows anything about these cameras to truly avoid using them altogether having a potential real hazard on human health. We'd be glad to publish about it in scientific journals if they do exist. 

Keep up the good work!

[CTRT]

I have no idea how lenses developed a discussion on international rights of speech Trust me both the united states and sweden are blessed with a generous amount of freedom of expression and if any of you care to give me a visit here you'd understand, where I was constantly harassed and arrested by the ''national security bureau'' for ''Displaying dangerous atheism thoughts on forums'' in a Muslim state. Yes that's actually a crime. In fact, the official constitutional law here sentences me to death if it shall be made public that I don't believe in God, so I have to keep it to myself or face social and legal consequences, to the point of spending hours a week in Mosques just to follow tradition. Trust me when I say, you're both blessed =D Whenever I am in Europe or the USA I feel as if a burden was lift of my chest and I can smell the air freely and be who I am. It's wonderful. Back of topic of lenses radioactivity: .

@Mattias There is a countless number of photographic lenses out there that do have high levels of radioactivity, it's a fact, and while the video is funny testing one/two lenses with a 3.5mm geiger meter with a phone app should not be taken by people as proof that old lenses contain zero radioactivity, that's the incorrect message that viewers will come out with, so I would clearly flag it for humor, saying that many lenses do contain radioactive elements. Just to be sure no one takes it seriously. 

@Rich Don't eat you Olympus please.

I know it's humor but just to give some real information:

On a serious note, really I would not ingest it, lick it, taste it. The harmless nature of vintage lenses' thorium radioactivity is due to human skin, we are practically wearing a completely sealed, 100% tight, praticle-proof vest covering 98% of our body surface area, no risk at all of handling and using and storing these lenses. The particles emitted from radioactive lenses cannot penetrate farther than the outer-most dead layer of skin that you wash out everyday. 

However, once you remove the vest (skin) you are exposing extremely sensitive epithelium that small lenses radioactive particles can destroy many active cells. Hence, in layman terms the radioactivity of lenses is only harmful if they come in contact with non skin-covered areas of ones's body for a long time (Eyes, oral cavity, rectum, inner ear, exposed injuries, to a degree tattoos, and of course inside the body). So aside from the extremely damaging nature of ingesting glass (you can return it to powder state before eating to avoid the physical damage), the radiation of an old lens can and will cause harmfull effects when swallowed. One lens, depending on how it measures, and depending on where it will land, will most probably cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, cramps, and two/three lenses could result in a small ulcer, which is pretty annoying.

Bottom line, these lenses have ZERO harm on you, unless ingested or stored in a body cavity (Which I understand why we would all want to do that but just avoid it with vintage glass, do it with nice modern L primes or something)

What caught our attention here when we were researching this was the notion that  some camera viewfinders contained the same glass radioactivity, which is a case that's really worth studying and should be the one to speak of, due to the obvious nature of using viewfinders in contact with exposed eyes for extremely long periods of times. However, we couldn't find any models or information on this. So if they do exist, in vintage or new cameras, it'd be extremely helpful if anyone knows anything about these cameras to truly avoid using them altogether having a potential real hazard on human health. We'd be glad to publish about it in scientific journals if they do exist. 

just great, now I have to save up for lens cases

[tugela]

So Mattias, is Zach serious or am I getting false signals due to my broken sense of humor?

That post reminds me of the typical day at my previous job.  You can give the general public all the scientific facts they need and you will still invariably get results like this.  Now do you understand why people who actually know what they are talking about can't tell if lay people are joking?  I mean the guy didn't even have to look anything up.  All he had to do was read the thread... and that was too much effort.  I like how I predicted this and sure enough a few posts later...  Voilà.

 

I will mail you $100 if you can intelligently and accurately summarize what you just linked to and it's relevance, if any, to this topic.

By the way did you see the Uranium bowls on ebay?  I like how they advertise the glow in the dark "feature."

I like how people rely on United States government regulations to determine what is and what is not safe.  I remember the US government regulating the dangerous yellow cake and nuclear weapons in Iraq.  $1+ Trillion well spent.  To those of you who prefer US government regulations to peer reviewed journals and textbooks I leave you with the crown jewel of US government safety regulations, enjoy...

Because chocolate eggs kill kids, not guns.

[agolex]

Sorry, I won't treat my viewers like little kids. Zero people outside this forum have mistaken it as serious. Every single person outside eoshd gets that its a joke. Why it's only in this place I leave to a psychologist to explain

Possibly because there's mainly little kids on YT & Co?

Zach it would also be helpful ...

He was just pulling a Zach on you!

[Mattias Burling]

Possibly because there's mainly little kids on YT & Co?

The stats on my channel clearly shows that it isn't so.

My theory is that it's just the techiest crowd like myself that visit forums like this. And the most tech oriented are often the assburgerie