Radioactive camera lenses ?

K

KGB-Spion

Member
Local time
11:21 AM
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
32
Dear Users, i have a stupid question :

My friends told me sth. about "radioactive lenses" ... when I heared it, I was laughing, but when I got home I opened my browser and found out, that this is real! There is a substance in the lens, causing it.

My question to You is: Is it dangerous for my health ?

I have 4 cams from the FSU and I play with them everythime ...

seriously - in the camerapedia it says, that it is a tenth (1/10) of an x-ray !??? Is that real ?
 
Thorium was used for low-dispersion glass. Usually, it was used on inner elements. The outer glass and shell of the lens effectively stop the particles.

It was not used in "all lenses", just some famous ones. Like the original Summicron, the Pentax 50/1.4, and Canon 58/1.2.
 
Well - this is a link I found :

http://photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/009X3q


I am afraid, that the summary-radiation will be higher, than the radiation of only one cam.

I also read, that the production of such lenses was forbidden! YOU can own this lens, but a factory doesn`t have the right any more to produce it in the EU and in USA.

So should I be afraid about it ? I mean radiation in any kind is dangerous, but maybe the summary radiation of the 4 lenses is less dangerous, than the radiation which comes out from my Gaming-PC ?
 
If it was all that strong all your film would be fogged before you took any pictures. Relax! It'll take years and years before your eyeballs turn purple and your fingers fall off. It's probably nowhere near as harmful as living in close proximity to high tension electric wires.

Newer glass types can have the same refractive index without the radioactive component. The radioactive glass gradually gets yellow, which is the most likely reason why it isn't used anymore.
 
Last edited:
I use this has a reference.

http://www.orau.org/PTP/collection/consumer products/cameralens.htm

Some idiot posted instructions on curing the yellow of a Pentax lens by smashing it with a sledgehammer. I hope he was wearing a Mask or Did not Inhale. You do not want to ingest the glass as proximity to tissue would be bad. Use in a camera lens, does not bother me.
 
" Relax! It'll take years and years before your eyeballs turn purple and your fingers fall off."

LOL! This is something I don`t want in any periode of time :)

I`m really surprised ! a couple of hours ago I thought, it was a bad joke, but now I realize, that it is a fact.

1. Thank You for Your information about the fact, that the camera isn`t dangerously infected by radioactivity.

2. Well , let`s continue talking about it ! The more information and experiences the users write, the better it is. Maybe tehere is something else we should know about ...

Yellow lens ? How can I realize it ?
 
I borrowed a Geiger counter from a Physics Department and I took measurements to be on the safe[r] side.
 
Cool ! I also need one :)

PS : What kind of yellow colour is it ? I have a Zenit 3M with the old Helios 44 (not 44M) and then I hold it in the light I see some yellow reflection - is it this sort of yellow, that`s mentioned ?
 
Many years ago I tested this with one of the most notoriously radioactive lenses of all time, a 7 inch f/2.5 Aero Ektar. I placed it rear-down on a sheet of 4x5 inch Polaroid Type 3000 and it produced an autoradiograph in less than 24 hours.

The truth, though, is that there are not many radioactive lenses, and that most of them date from the 1940s to 1960s. The biggest danger is using alpha-emitter lenses as telescope eyepieces, where the unprotected eye is close to the glass for long periods.

Having said that, I'd not store Aero Ektars under my bed, as a friend-of-a-friend did until he found out about this.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
If somebody has a Geiger Counter, maybe he could measure out, what values it gives on the Industar lenses and compare it with other lenses, like the ones from Leica ?

In some Forums, there was written, that "the radioactivity is 300 times higher" than the background !

Is there any possibility of getting tumors or cancer ? I am studying Engineering & Computer Sciences (my subject is electrical Technologies) on an University in W. Germany - I am not lying, when I say, that even low radioactivity causes a real danger to many weak people... if the lens-radiation isn`t bad, it is OK :)

--> I want to measure it, but they told me, the tool is available in 2 weeks only!

I like vintage cams ... but my health is more important :)

... maybe we could make some kind of "rang-list" :) What lens would be the number one ? :)
 
I think the Industar 61L/D uses Lanthanum glass, not a big emitter. Thorium emits more. Chances are the Yellow you see is a coating, not the glass. You can also bleach the Yellow out using a UV light. The set it in the sun method bleaches the damage out, but also dries the lubricants in the lens. My Thorium Summicron required a complete relube, but it had been bleached before I got it.
 
I'd be surprised if FSU lenses were radioactive as they were pre-WW2 designs and made very little demand on exotic glass formulae. With the exception of uranium-tinted yellow filters, there were to the best of my knowledge few or no radioactive glasses before WW2.

Gas mantles are another matter...

Tashi delek,

R.
 
You beat me to it Roger, I was going to mention gas mantles which contain Thorium Oxide with a trace of Cerium, this is what makes them glow brilliantly white, used ones should be disposed of carefully, wash hands after handling one, say when you are changing it.
 
I wouldn't be too worried about small FSU RF-lenses, especially if they are some of the common types.

However, some lenses are radiactive so that you really shouldn't keep them for example under your bed all the time.

One example is 4x5 Kodak Aero Ektar 178/2.5. I owned one and got it measured for radioactivity. Just behind the rear element the reading was 17 uSv (micro-Sievert) which is about 100x the background radiation and same as it is at some places around Tshernobyl are (the red woods?).
A friend also measured his Nikkor 35/1.4 (older type) which was something like half or third of this.

For radiation, just as light when it comes to photography, the density or "power" changes fast, when the distance gets bigger. Think about flashes for example. Same happens with radiation. So even already at a couple meters, the reading would be not much at all. For my Aero Ektar and the Nikkor, the readings were taken so that the meter was attached to the rear element, so the distance was really small.

This means, just store the lense a bit further from where you spend most of your time and there should be no problems at all with the radiation.

When there was a thread about Aero Ektars, someone said, having this kind lense attached to your head or body for an hour, means about the same as smoking one cigarette, when it comes to radiation. So no big worries.

I bet the Aero Ektar is one of the most radioactive lenses that people "commonly" have or use. Some Industar's etc have been measured and they wouldn't even give the meter a reading other than what the radiation normally is indoors.
 
KGB-Spion said:
In some Forums, there was written, that "the radioactivity is 300 times higher" than the background !

Is there any possibility of getting tumors or cancer ? I am studying Engineering & Computer Sciences (my subject is electrical Technologies) on an University in W. Germany - I am not lying, when I say, that even low radioactivity causes a real danger to many weak people... if the lens-radiation isn`t bad, it is OK :)

--> I want to measure it, but they told me, the tool is available in 2 weeks only!

I like vintage cams ... but my health is more important :)

... maybe we could make some kind of "rang-list" :) What lens would be the number one ? :)
Click to expand...


incorrect, from the data i have read, they (your forums) have it back the front. the background rads are 300+ higher than than the rads you would on average be exposed to holding the lens to you eye with average use over the coarse of a entire year. even tho the lens of the eye is particularly sensitive to radiation, its not considered dangerous/harmfull by those experts that do the testing..hopefully not the same people that provide the testing for the mobile phone companies (jk, these tests were by different people)

the rads you would be exposed to (on average with this type of lens)are actually ten times higher than the rads that you are exposed to from background radiation (which is not deemed at all harmful) whilst holding the camera to your eye ...however thier tests show that it would take several million accumulated hours of using the lens/exposure to your eye to reach the levels that can cause a cataract to manifest...they mention that thorium or lanthanum glass in a viewfinder would be a greater risk but didnt mention any brand names that used it

further there has never been any reported cases linked to these cameras lenses...military glass/lenses of the period would have much higher levels, scopes, bins etc etc..and have a greater risk

if you are worried though, just dont use it....your (or other people using thiers) mobile phone is likely going to fry your brain before these lenses will give you cataracts though
 
Last edited:
thats incredible Stewart eh, a bit like some folk taking silver oxide, for its benefits, and there skin permanently turns blue..still happens too
 
chippy said:
thats incredible Stewart eh, a bit like some folk taking silver oxide, for its benefits, and there skin permanently turns blue..still happens too
Click to expand...


As a kid I recall shoe shops having x-ray machines so one could see how well the new shoes fit, one looked into a binocular eye piece and could see the bones in a green glow in real time so it’s probably too late for me to worry much about lenses

:)

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

The shoes were inevitably Start-Rights from Clarks on Ivegate in Bradford
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom