Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,091   Online: 1019
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Copyhat View Post
    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.

    Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
    Oh, the town?
    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?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    12

    additional info about anamoly

    As I mentioned before, a strange almost kirilian-like form appears in one image but not the other. Both are photographed at the same time, of the same event, with the same focal length lens AND both are on Tri-X emulsion. I don't want to post the image but if you would like to see it, send me your email address and I will send you the images. My email is vceinc (at) aol (dot) com.

    One is a 4x5 sheet film whereas the other is a 4x5 glass plate but both are considered Tri-X. My question is whether there are other differences between the two Tri-X films beside the fact that one is on glass and the other is on film. For instance, is there more gelatin on the emulsion of the glass plate? This would possibly absorb the UV more than the film if true. What are the halation differences between a glass plate and a film plate?

  3. #23
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,601
    Glass plates due to their thickness (would) have much more pronounced (larger) halos.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin