Radioactive Glass in Lenses bnphoto org

The Environmental Protection Agency of Superfund sites around the country Friday that it said regulators will targetThe push is part of Administrator Scott Pruitt s promise to prioritize the decades-old cleanup program, even as the Trump administration shrinks the size and reach of the EPA. The 76 sites highlighted by the agency span the country, from a former tannery site in New Hampshire to a contaminated landfill from the World War II-era Manhattan Project in St. Louis to an abandoned copper mine in Nevada. By elevating these sites, we are sending a message that EPA is, in fact, restoring its Superfund program to its rightful place at the center of the agency s mission, Pruitt said in a statement. Getting toxic land sites cleaned up and revitalized is of the utmost importance to the communities across the country that are affected by these sites. The EPA said that it developed the list using sites where opportunities exist to act quickly and comprehensively. Notably, the agency also acknowledged that there is no commitment of additional funding associated with a site s inclusion on the list. David Konisky, a political scientist at Indiana University s School of Public and Environmental Affairs, questioned how EPA put together the list of sites it released Friday.

Prostate Treatment Reference Prostate Terms Dattoli

The EPA selected sites based on the ability of the Administrator to help achieve an upcoming milestone or site-specific action. This strikes me as mostly about creating a credit-claiming opportunity for Pruitt, rather than prioritizing additional resources to sites where communities face the most significant health risks. There are more than 6,855 Superfund sites nationwide, some of which have lingered for years on the EPA s national priorities list. While Pruitt has repeatedly spoken about his focus on the program, calling it vital and a cornerstone of the EPA s mission, critics have noted that the Trump administration has proposed slashing the Superfund budget by 85 percent. They also worry that a single-minded focus on speeding up the process at particular sites could result in inadequate cleanups. It s happy talk, Nancy Loeb, director of the Environmental Advocacy Center at Northwestern University s Pritzker School of Law, told The Post in the summer, noting how funding for the program has shrunk over time. We have Superfund sites, but we don t have a super fund. At many contaminated sites around the country, the EPA can legally force companies responsible for the pollution to pay for cleanups. But tapping private dollars isn t an option at some Superfund sites. At these orphaned sites, polluting companies long ago went bankrupt or ceased to be liable, and the cleanup responsibilities now fall mostly to the federal government. It s difficult to envision such places getting fixed without an adequate Superfund budget. If we feel like the numbers of the budget are not sufficient to address those, we ll be sure to let Congress know, Pruitt said in an interview with The Post in the spring, echoing an answer he gave during a hearing this week to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Early in his tenure at EPA, Pruitt created a Superfund task force to come up with ways to expedite cleanups and redevelop sites across the country. He also announced that he personally would be involved in decisions around sites where decontamination is estimated to cost $55 million or more. While Friday s list includes an array of sites, Pruitt has repeatedly singled out a landfill with radioactive waste outside St. Louis, known as West Lake, and a public housing complex saturated with lead contamination in East Chicago, Indiana. Both sites were included on the agency s updated list.

The West Lake landfill has decomposing trash 655 feet underground that is radiating heat in what scientists call a subsurface burning event. The smoldering trash is adjacent to a separate 755-acre landfill containing 65 acres of radioactive waste dating to the World War II-era Manhattan Project. Pruitt visited the Indiana site earlier this year, where residents have been moved from their homes for fear of dangerous exposure to the contaminated soil. Over a billion dollars have been spent at these sites, Pruitt told reporters this summer. We need talent, expertise. . To make sure we have a detailed plan with a timeline and benchmarks. That is what s needed, he added at the time, instead of incrementally dealing with it. Notes: The site still exists, but many of the pages seem to be no longer maintained and available and I have not been able to reach the original site developer, Robert Monaghan, who collected and edited the following information from use net postings. This was restored from a copy I made in November 7558 Bob may have added to or edited this page after that. This page is not limited to discussions of Kodak lenses and includes discussion of other makes which are suspect of being radioactive. The original article had numerous links within the text. This replication does not include those links. Radioactive Glass in Lenses Are Your Lenses Really Hot? ! By Robert Monaghan(The titles of the original Related Local Links are included but no longer linked to other pages) Related Local Links:

Sisters battling same cancer kept in isolation mirror

Fallout Shelters, Radiation. Industar 66 lens (lanthanum glass) Lens Faults Pages Photo. Net on Radioactive Lenses (gamma levels. ) Radioactive Fed-5s (slight. ) Radioactive Optics Posting (WJM) Radioactive Pentax Lens (GM tube sound file. ) Romancing the Rare Earths On Enhancing Filters by Howard Ross U. S. Govt Surplus Hot Cameras and LensesYou will find two kinds of radioactive lenses - those that were contaminated and sold as government surplus, and those that are naturally hot or radioactive due to the radioactive elements or radioactive impurities used in their manufacture. If you want to buy some slightly radioactive lenses and cameras, the U. Government has a lot of them for sale - cheap! Maybe some of those bargains you got on EBAY are hot in a different sense than you might have thought! I am assuming that heavily contaminated and radioactive government surplus items end up in government low level radioactive waste land-fills or other burial sites. So if your government surplus bargain camera or lens is contaminated, it is probably only lightly contaminated. That's good news, I guess? Our main focus here is not on contaminated lenses or cameras, but on naturally radioactive or hot lenses due to the materials used in their manufacture. Hot Lenses made from Radioactive Materials Many specialty optical glasses have radioactive elements added to them, either as desired components or as impurities in the mixtures being used. These slightly radioactive elements such as thorium or rare earth elements such as lanthanum were used to produce desired highly refractive glasses.

Other uses for rare earth elements in photography include color enhancing filters. See Howard G. Ross' Romancing the Rare Earths for a history of enhancing filters and the use of various rare earth elements therein. Lanthanum has two isotopes in its natural form, one of which is weakly radioactive. Another source of rare earths such as lanthanum is cerite, which contains the element cerium. Cheap glasses may have iron salts in them, often yielding the familiar green color of some iron salt contaminated glasses. Cerium is often added to glass to convert iron impurities into colorless compounds, yielding clear glass suitable for optical uses. Unfortunately, the rare earths include some chemically very similar elements as contaminants, many of which are mildly radioactive. The chemistry of lanthanum and its associated rare earths is so closely related that it is readily possible to have radioactive contaminants end up in the desired lanthanum salts used in making optical glasses. The amount of such contaminants could also easily vary from batch to batch, depending on the degree of contamination in the original monazite or other mineral sources being used. I don't think that the original levels of thorium or lanthanum specified for use in these lenses [e. G. , in patent filings] is the cause of their radioactivity. Later lenses of the same exact design and glass formulas, but from later batches with higher serial numbers, do not exhibit any similar degree of radioactivity. Nor do they suffer from yellow discoloration over decades of time. So it isn't the thorium or the lanthanum that causes the problem here. The radioactivity of these early lenses is caused by contaminants in the ingredients (e.

, thorium salts) used to make the early lenses. It is these radioactive contaminants which cause these lenses to be more radioactive than their later (more purified) batches of the same design. Roger Hicks* on Radioactive Lenses: Radioactivity in the first generation of hot lenses c. 6996-6955 is a by-product of imperfect refinement of the monazite sands used to provide the rare earths. There are quite a few 'hot' rare-earth firstgeneration lenses. Radioactivity in the second generation of lenses was down to the use of cerium to bleach iron salts in the glass (colourless) ferrates are stable in glass solution. Once again, the purity of the cerium was questionable. These are alpha-particle emitters, which ain't normally a problem -- even a lens-cap stops the particles, as does a few cm of air -- but it's not a good idea to use the lens as a telescope eye-piece, as some did. These second-generation lenses stretched well into the 6965s again from memory, at least one of the standard Takumars was 'hot'. Source: Bob Shell 77 Sept. 6999 posting below quoting Mr. Roger Hicks, noted author of The Lens Book etc. Radioactivity Radioactivity generally is found in three categories: alpha particles, beta particles, and gamma or xray radiation. The xray and gamma radiation is very penetrating, able to pierce through a foot or more of concrete, but for that reason it interacts less effectively with film or people than beta or alpha particles at closer ranges.

Recent Posts