From: sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu (007)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered ANTI STATIC BRUSHES (was Re: View finder cleaning)
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:10:44 GMT

jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:

>geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) writes:
>: Without having any data, I'd imagine that the radiation dose you'll get
>: from using a Static Master is absolutely insignificant.

>"Absolutely insignificant" ???

Yes, somewhat like pouring a gallon of water into a lake.  It won't make a
difference in the level of the lake.

>: I've never used (or even seen) a Static Master, but I'm just trying to
>: dispel some fears about Evil Radiation (tm).  Remember, you get a
>: radiation dose from watching TV, climbing a mountain, smoking a
>: cigarette, eating a banana, taking a trip to Denver, flying across the
>: country, and lots of other things you probably don't think twice about
>: (well, ok, you might think twice about the cigarette ;^) ). 

>There are different kinds of radiation.  If I understand it right, the
>Static Master uses a low-level source of beta radiation (electrons) ...
>or is it alpha particles?  Well, either way, large doses of either are
>Double Ungood, so to speak.  What you are calling "absolutely insignificant"
>may mean that you don't notice anything now, but you become terminally ill
>20 years from now if you eat brocolli when the moon is full :-)

I'm pretty sure these anti-stat brushes use alpha particles.  These particles
ionize the air for a few inches around the brush, allowing it to conduct the
static charge away.

Alpha particles won't even make it through your skin, so they will cause no
lasting damage.  (see below)  If you were to eat the brush, then you could
have a problem since your internal organs don't regenerate like the skin
does.

>After all, things like freon, photographic chemicals and leaded gasoline
>used to be considered safe.  Oh yes, cigarettes were thought to be safe, too!

>I myself try to stay away from unnatural sources of nuclear radiation, and
>most natural ones as well.

And such is your right.

Chemical hazards are VERY difficult to determine.  Radiation hazards are
fairly easy, since there are only three kinds of ionizing radiation and all
have been studied well.  (As opposed to millions of chemicals.)

Now don't get me wrong, radiation IS dangerous if you exceed the body's
ability to cope with it.  Just sitting there in front of your computer, you
are receiving an above-average dose of ionizing radiation.  But your
body can cope-- it regenerates what the radiation is destroying.  If it
didn't, the radiation from the sun would have killed you long ago.

>: It would be interesting to see some numbers

>Yes, not that they would prove anything!

I wish I had some to share, but all my books are about 1000 miles
south of me...

>BTW, what kind of radiation does one get from bananas?  Were you serious
>about that?

Oh, you probably absorb some radioactive phosphorus isotopes, along with
the usual collection of carbon-13 and some rather nasty potassium isotopes.
Again, it's not enough to worry about.  Humans have been absorbing all of
these without complaint for milennia.  Now if the bananna were grown on a
Nevada nuclear weapons test range, you might have cause to worry... ;->

Summary:  Don't panic!  There are more important things to worry about.

Now back to our regularly scheduled newsgroup... :)

  -- 007
-- 
 000   000  7777 | sbonds@jarthur.claremont.edu
0   0 0   0   7  |----------------------------------------------------------- 
0   0 0   0  7   |        Childhood is short...
 000   000   7   |                    ...but immaturity is forever.
Newsgroups: rec.photo