Old film refridged 8 years

Alan Browne wrote:

The lead bag will do nothing against alpha particles that fly through
lead as if empty space.

You can stop alpha-particles with a sheet of paper. It's the uncharged
stuff that penetrates deep, e.g. gamma and neutrons.

-- Lassi

Corrections here go unheeded. These yahoos make the **** up as they go.

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:

The lead bag will do nothing against alpha particles that fly through
lead as if empty space.

You can stop alpha-particles with a sheet of paper. It's the uncharged
stuff that penetrates deep, e.g. gamma and neutrons.

-- Lassi

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

The lead bag will do nothing against alpha particles that fly through
lead as if empty space.

You can stop alpha-particles with a sheet of paper. It's the uncharged
stuff that penetrates deep, e.g. gamma and neutrons.

He may have gotten the wrong particles but the result is the same, even
in lead shielding film has a limited life, Kodak has written a lot
about this. And if you are going to use lead you better be use it does
not have some level of radiation in it

homer.ornl.gov/oepa/guidance/aea/lead.pdf

Without some level of care the lead shielding can cause more radiation
then it blocks.

Scott

Alan Browne spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote (in his sig):

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

http://creepingmeatball.blogspot.com...rror-rate.html

Ah, yes, this is the vaunted study that Jimbo Wales and his
wiki-sychophants always tout as "proof" that Wikipedia is at least as
good as, in this case, the most popular paper encyclopedia. But as has
been pointed out by many critics, this was an incomplete, cursory study
that mainly looked at articles on science subjects. It completely
ignores, for instance, that the bulk of Wikipedia consists of things
like articles on Pokemon characters, Star Trek arcana, etc.

Check this out to see which parts of Wikipedia get hit the most:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stat...s/?wiki=enwiki


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

We can only assume you're perfect...(perfect asshole is more like it).

"Doug Robbins" wrote in message
...
Corrections here go unheeded. These yahoos make the **** up as they go.

"Lassi Hippeläinen" wrote in message
...
Alan Browne wrote:

The lead bag will do nothing against alpha particles that fly through
lead as if empty space.

You can stop alpha-particles with a sheet of paper. It's the uncharged
stuff that penetrates deep, e.g. gamma and neutrons.

-- Lassi

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Alan Browne spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote (in his sig):

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

http://creepingmeatball.blogspot.com...rror-rate.html

Ah, yes, this is the vaunted study that Jimbo Wales and his
wiki-sychophants always tout as "proof" that Wikipedia is at least as good
as, in this case, the most popular paper encyclopedia. But as has been
pointed out by many critics, this was an incomplete, cursory study that
mainly looked at articles on science subjects. It completely ignores, for
instance, that the bulk of Wikipedia consists of things like articles on
Pokemon characters, Star Trek arcana, etc.

Check this out to see which parts of Wikipedia get hit the most:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~leon/stat...s/?wiki=enwiki



And? Do you really care that a Pokemon article might have it wrong, or do
you just hate it that some people are interested in such things? As far as
I can tell, your signature snip at wikipedia has nothing to substantiate it.

AAvK wrote:

Hello all, pertinent to the recent thread "expired film" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm

I have several rolls of 120/220 I shot in '97 - '99, I have kept it all refridged in a lead
lined travel film bag since then, and only recently put it in the freezer! Need to know,
how should it be developed? Pushed or pulled? Special or concentrated chemicals?
What damage has been done?

Please reply,

The main issue that may arise is fogging. It can occur
from high energy radiant particles (gamma rays, etc.)
or even from the chemicals in film packaging. There is,
in fact, probably is some fogging but the degree of
fogging is the question. I've had some films fog
significantly after just a few years of storage yet
with other films it's only minor.

I would process your film normally. Best thing to do is
maybe run a few tests and check for too high a film
base density. I wouldn't know what fb+f density is normal
for your film and developer, but if it is too high you
could try adding a restrainer to the developer (benzotriazole,
otherwise known as liquid orthozite.) If it's not too high
you should simply be able to print through it.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Alan Browne spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote (in his sig):

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

http://creepingmeatball.blogspot.com...rror-rate.html

Ah, yes, this is the vaunted study that Jimbo Wales and his
wiki-sychophants always tout as "proof" that Wikipedia is at least as good
as, in this case, the most popular paper encyclopedia. But as has been
pointed out by many critics, this was an incomplete, cursory study that
mainly looked at articles on science subjects. It completely ignores, for
instance, that the bulk of Wikipedia consists of things like articles on
Pokemon characters, Star Trek arcana, etc.

Do the critics point out that before the internet, there was no way to find
out how many hits there were on anything? - How did they know how many
Pokemon characters were looked up in the Encyclopedia Britannica? (for
example)

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
oups.com...

AAvK wrote:
Hello all, pertinent to the recent thread "expired film" in
rec.photo.equipment.35mm

I have several rolls of 120/220 I shot in '97 - '99, I have kept it all
refridged in a lead
lined travel film bag since then, and only recently put it in the
freezer! Need to know,
how should it be developed? Pushed or pulled? Special or concentrated
chemicals?
What damage has been done?

The lead bag will do nothing against alpha particles that fly through
lead as if empty space. So some fogging of the film may occur. If a
"low-ish" speed film (50/100) then possibly not so bad.

I don't think so....Usually alpha particles are stopped by a piece of
paper.....See this excerpt from Wikepedia....

The energy of alpha particles varies, with higher energy alpha particles
being emitted from larger nuclei, but most alpha particles have energies of
between 3 and 7 MeV. This is a substantial amount of energy for a single
particle, but their high mass means alpha particles do not have high
speeds - in fact, their speed is lower than any other common type of
radiation (? particles, ?-rays, neutrons etc). Because of their charge and
large mass, alpha particles are easily absorbed by materials and can travel
only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the
outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells
deep) and so are not generally dangerous to life unless the source is
ingested or inhaled.

William Graham spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

Alan Browne spake thus:


David Nebenzahl wrote (in his sig):


Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

http://creepingmeatball.blogspot.com...rror-rate.html

Ah, yes, this is the vaunted study that Jimbo Wales and his
wiki-sychophants always tout as "proof" that Wikipedia is at least as good
as, in this case, the most popular paper encyclopedia. But as has been
pointed out by many critics, this was an incomplete, cursory study that
mainly looked at articles on science subjects. It completely ignores, for
instance, that the bulk of Wikipedia consists of things like articles on
Pokemon characters, Star Trek arcana, etc.

Do the critics point out that before the internet, there was no way to find
out how many hits there were on anything? - How did they know how many
Pokemon characters were looked up in the Encyclopedia Britannica? (for
example)

The point is, EB had (and still has, I presume) *no* articles on
Pokemon, or characters on /House/, or any of the thousands of other
articles (known in wiki-speak as "-cruft") which EB would not consider
"encyclopedic" in the first place.


--
Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)