With all due respect Vitaliy (and it is allot of respect), I did not mean to imply there has not been a reduction in electrical use, or ramifications. However as a whole Japan is doing much better than most expected. Most people in the country have an attitude that they can do without nuclear energy, and I believe they are correct. My grandfather died from nuclear exposure working at Hanford as a subcontractor, and as a whole I do not trust the industry at all. I'm not sure what you mean by "middle class expermination", but most of my life has been led in poverty and right now I am right on the line. I support banning nuclear energy because it will never be 100% safe, it is replaceable, and it is no where near as cost effective as they would have you believe.

Call me nuts, but I think the aftermath of the disaster is going to spawn some serious innovation in Japan around the energy industry. They have such an all for one mentality, and whether you agree with it or not, I think they are going to be one of the leaders of the green future revolution.

The generators and batteries that were destroyed by the flood were on the bottom floor of the reactor buildings. Another little known fact is that the design plans from GE said they should be installed in the top so that floods wouldn't take them out. The Japanese company who ran the reactors decided that it would cost too much money to put them on the upper floors and decided that the basement was the cheapest place.

Nuclear power didn't cause the disaster, human greed and stupidity did.

@mee, unfortunately that's not possible for the earthquake to crack a steel containment vessel, as not only is it one of the strongest structures designed by man, made of feet thick steel, but it is usually suspended off the ground in pressurized water reactors.

The loss of coolant flow due to the failed batteries/generators caused the resulting hydrostatic pressure to rise due to expansion of the hot fluids and of the contained steam, which resulted in cracking and bursting of the containment vessel.

Now, the containment building was cracked by the earthquake, but that's inconsequential by itself. Without the containment vessel bursting, there would have been no radiation leaks.

everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in !! har har.

Anyways, I am having trouble finding the report on the crack which predated the explosions, but here is a link that shows how such a thing is very possible. If it happened with one, it could happen with another.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

Sigh - just as a quick poll for laughs and giggles, who in this thread has any kind of Physics qualification?

I took a number of physics classes while getting my engineering degree.. does that count? :)

@soundgh2 I took a lot of physics in college -- it's one of the requirements for coaching football. I also took some dance classes -- but that was mainly to meet chicks.

The one consumer downside of thorium glass is that it yellows or browns when the thorium oxides decay as they release alpha particles. When I got my lens the thorium element was brownish. It warmed the image which was fine. I test shot 17% grey cards and my X-Rite Passport Color Checker and any color casts were easily corrected in Lightroom. This could be an issue when shooting color slide film. However the darkened glass had an ND type effect on exposure making the lens less-fast even when shooting at f2. I left the lens in direct sun for a couple of months to lighten the glass because I wanted a faster lens. The warming effect wasn't a deal breaker. I may get a UV flashlight or find a clinic with a UV laser and pay them to clean the glass further.

I hate the term blacklist. Whether discussing thorium glass lens elements or 1950's Hollywood actors with a socially liberal bend, blacklists are created as a product of fear and not real dangers. I also have a set of antique Fireking Jadite tableware which gets it's opalescent green color from radioactive uranium oxide. Old Fireking glass is borosilicate, Pyrex, so it is strong and can withstand very high and below freezing temperatures. Aside from not putting out enough radiation that anything but the most sensitive geiger counters can detect. Even cooking acidic foods in the oven with uranium colored jadeite will not leach any uranium oxide into food or the bodies of people eating off of it.

I have a few radioactive Takumar lenses and am not a bit worried about the potential dangers of them. I've also safely traveled with them through airports where people who have had a recent radiation treatment for cancer can set off the radiation detectors there. The majority of the radiation emitting from the breaking down of the thorium coating on these lenses can be blocked by a couple inches of air. Unless you walking around with one of these lenses firmly pressed against your eyeball for days on end there is very little chance you are going to get cancer from them.

OMG, my lenses could be radioactive, OMG, quick, i'll sell them......and with the money i'll start smoking to relieve stress :D

Anyway, if we study them, most things around us are potentially dangerous.... (starting with the sun). Three days ago i got a radioactive stuff injected in my body because i needed a renal scintigraphy..... from what i've read, the radiation dose is the same as an X-ray... (it's just a matter of drinking enough to rid the body of the last radioactive particles).

People who live on rocky underground are exposed to radon gas, which is radioactive, and increases chances of having cancer.

Mine workers were also exposed to it.

Uhm, maybe that photographers and videographers could apply for special medical funds seems it's a risky job now :D

You get more radiation from a transatlantic flight than sleeping with a Minolta strapped to your face lens has such a tiny microroentgen dose that there's nothing to worry about. 6 hour a day usage (that's 6 hours a day with the camera at your face - that's a lot lol) is equal to 3 cross USA flights No radiation is good for you and it is accumulative. If you have a radioactive lens, most important is to store it well. Put it in a lead or steel box. ..wear a watch with glowy numerals? - best take it off, don't stand near your fridge, swim in the sea, etc etc ... London smog, riding a bike to work , microwave towers, stress, beer, sitting in studios for 9 months a year, living in front of a computer monitor, eating burgers, crossing the road, using a mobile phone ... supporting Liverpool - all bad for your health or potentially lethal Stop worrying about lenses.. And start worrying about food.. People have a lot of time on their hands>Worry more about your DP skills than radioactivity;-) Even cooking acidic foods in the oven with uranium colored jadeite will not leach any uranium oxide into food Unless you walking around with one of these lenses firmly pressed against your eyeball for days on end there is very little chance you are going to get cancer from them. I'd be more worried about the spelling in the title of this thread

We can all have fun & learn something by going to http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ and hovering our mouse-cursors over the little fallacy icons.

@Roberto, I love that flick.

I have to say one of my biggest peeves is when people say "everything is dangerous" or "everything gives you cancer". Though many things can give you cancer, many of the things that do are avoidable, and man made problems. Our species started a giant assembly line of products in a very short period of time, and learned much in the process, but many things were not known at the time, and products that were in fact not good for the health of people made their way into our homes and daily lives. Many of which we are only now learning can make us sick. So, we can be idiots and let the products remain unchanged, and even add more products known to be harmful continue to be added to the line, and pretend there is no such thing as accummatalive (spell check) exposure, or we can start trying to use our new found knowledge for positive change.

I aint talking about lenses yo.

@Roberto lol ad hominem methinks