Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: On dust



I think we've had this argument before, about two years ago. 

Perhaps it is true that Plutonium is not as risky as once reported, but
individual response to ionizing radiation is just that, and therefore a
relative unknown, so I prefer to err on the side of caution, and would
recommend others do the same.

I can say in good conscience that I have no ax to grind on this issue. 
Neither my income or my work relate to radioactive materials and my
concern is that people not be cavalier in their contact with radioactive
materials.

No blanket statement is fully accurate, including yours, and I still
stand by my basic view that we should attempt to avoid contact with
added radioactive sources, beyond those we are forced to within our day
to day contact (both through natural and man-induced means).

Since this is off topic, I will simply suggest anyone using products
containing radioactive materials would be best off researching the
specific isotopes involved, and to err on the side of caution for their
own and their family's safety. 

And, don't believe everything you read about radioactivity from either
side, and especially from those in the industries. I have in my
possession booklets put out by the industry 15-30 years ago which would
make even the most nuclear friendly scientist blush.

Art

"S. Matthew Prastein" wrote:
> 
> This may be slightly OT, but I had to respond.  In short, most of what
> you "know" about plutonium is BS.  Plutonium in small quantities is no
> more dangerous than other radioactive substances.  That "one atom"
> nonsense is pure hype, invented by those with various
> political/economic/social agendas.
> 
> Yes, these brushes are extremely effective in removing static cling,
> which can attach dust specs to film with extreme tenacity.
> 
> That said, you DO want to return a "dead" StaticMaster for proper
> disposal.  Its potential for mischief is about on a par with that of a
> dead mercury wristwatch cell. But, as long as the brush is intact
> there is absolutely NO hazard.
>





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.