I assume static electricity discharge.
A simpler explanation is the pictures were shot at different fire ball times for post analysis...
Think the photos of the Soviet czar bomb tests show pronounced electric effects.
The test bombs were heavily instrumented to validate the designers sums.
eg the first US 'H' bomb had an predicted yield of 3-7 mega but cause of a bad assumption was in the 12-18 mega range, oops!
The difference damaged instrumentation (it destroyed a bunker) and contributed to death of a local boat crew.
Slightly off topic maybe but how does radiation from a nuclear bomb or radioactive waste effect film? Lets say I want to go to Chernobyl and want to capture it on film....will it ruin the film fast or slow? I would probably keep the camera in a lead bag along with all my film but just curious...I feel like high speed film would be the first victim but even slower stuff might too....reason I ask is I've always fancied the idea of heading to Chernobyl, its oddly beautiful to me and I'd love to go there with 100 rolls of slide film and maybe a few rolls of higher speed film like Portra 800, Provia 400X, T-Max 3200 (or whatever its called)....I'm pretty far off from even planning this but I didn't find much on the internet...I mean I'd likely bring my DSLR along but I'd definitely need to have some nice slides too. Yeah I know sorta strange place to visit but yeah!
Id pack my lead boxer shorts and not worry about the film.
The plant will be hot for centuries, they will need to maintain the 'coffin' for a long while, Id not wander about in the local area to plant or down wind plume area.
Last thing Id worry about was film if it is all black see 1st para above.
What is wrong with Hiroshima or Nagasaki or 3 mile island?
Or visiting the hospitals.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If radiation levels are low enough for humans to be allowed there, it should be safe enough for medium and slow speed films, too. Remember that natural background radiation is everywhere, including where you are currently. One cannot escape radiation, as it comes from outer space, from the rocks we tread on, from the air we breathe and from within our own bodies. Where radiation levels are measurably above natural background, and can be linked to specific nuclides that originate from man's activities, there is usually some form of monitoring or control implemented. However, that does not mean such radiation is intrinsically more harmful or problematic than natural background radiation from a health or film condition perspective. The best thing you can do to your film is to use it as soon as possible, and to develop it as soon as possible after exposure. Unlike a living thing, a film cannot restore itself after radiation damage. What is fogged will remain so, and due to background radiation, all films will slowly but steadily fog up, whatever we do to prevent it.
Originally Posted by nateo200
If by Chernobyl you mean the reactor itself, then I think you should find out first what the regulatory restrictions are. If you mean the town and vicinity, then there should not be anything to worry about. Just follow the guidelines and regulations implemented by the authorities. Forget the lead pants nonsense - it is irrational fear not supported by any scientific observation of the past 70 and more years.
The radiation levels are low enough to not cause direct exposure on the film or cytotoxic effects on your body, but it's highly penetrative, meaning lots of DNA mutations and elevated (probably magnitudes) long term risk of any type of cancers and neoplasms.
Also, the effect is cumulative, the longer you stay, the worse.
I'm also intrigued by Chernobyl, but can't risk it right now.
If you're over 60 though, what the hell, go for it, you don't have another 30 or 40 years of mutations to accumulate, you can indulge yourself into some risk.
Do you have any sources on that? The town of Pripyat should be safe; all the short-lived isotopes have decayed a long time ago and background radiation doesn't exceed 1 microsievert. One whole sievert has a stochastic effect of increasing cancer risk by 5.5%. You are more at risk if you enter a hospital.
Originally Posted by giannisg2004
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
- Konica T3N
- Konica FS-1
- Nikon F4s
- Nikon F5
- Nikon F801
make sure you can get a permit, there may be other excitement in the Ukraine as well so photogs may not be favored.
radiation damage is like global warming you don't need either as the effects are impossible to predict but won't be good.
Normally you get to wear a film badge in reactor areas but they only monitor general background exposure there are lots of local hot spots miles away from bits of reactor fabric the big bits won't have stayed up for long you breath in or ingest one you are dead, your badge and film might be ok.
It was a very powerful explosion makes the Ja reactor problem look like bonsi tea party.
I should not have teased about the lead underwear a full NBC suit is more desirable.
Oh, the town?
Originally Posted by Copyhat
The town is probably safe.
The iodine products are long gone (the have a half life of a week more or less), and the caesium products are much less harmful, as they're reaching their half-life after almost thirty years.
Also, intensity falls rapidly with distance.
In the town, I'd be surprised if the radiation level is more than 2-3 times the background levels.
I thought he was talking about the ruins around the plant.
The radiation there is ~400 mGy/hour, while the global average is ~0.5-5 mGy/hour (well, since I can't test this data, take it with a grain of salt, other reports might differ a bit).
The difference is not as huge as it sounds, but it's still ~10 times the safety levels for humans. Of course it's far from lethal, but why go through this and increase the free radicals in your body?