How to get dust off film for scanning.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Eric Stevens, Jun 6, 2010.

  1. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.

    I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.

    I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    humidity has dropped to 60%.

    What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?

    Thanks in advance to all and sundry.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Eric Stevens

    Bob AZ Guest

    > Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Eric

    Send them to a lab to be washed.

    Bob AZ
    Bob AZ, Jun 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Eric Stevens

    ransley Guest

    On Jun 5, 11:13 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    > scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >
    > I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    > examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >
    > I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    > cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    > making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    > everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    > moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    > humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >
    > What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >
    > Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    It isnt winter where humidity could be 10%, Ive scanned at low
    humidity with no issues, 60% is actualy high. Its dirt and dust years
    of poor handling and storage
    ransley, Jun 6, 2010
    #3
  4. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 22:33:52 -0700, Mike Russell
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 16:13:59 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.

    >...
    >Hi Eric,
    >
    >Probably the problem started long ago, with the way the slides were stored.
    >
    >It's been some years since I did much slide scanning. I found that even
    >with relatively clean slides, it took me 30 seconds or even more to remove
    >the couple of flecks of dust from each slide. It's faster to clone out a
    >few specs in Photoshop than to go back and do a re-scan.
    >
    >There is no easy solution - though if you have many slides, it may be worth
    >buying a scanner, such as a Nikon with ICE technology, which uses a
    >separate IR beam to detect, and remove the dust. If your budget is limited
    >(whose isn't), buy a used scanner on eBay, and sell it again when you're
    >done.


    Two points.

    My problem is with film, not slides (slides are yet to come).

    My scanner is an Epson V700 which has a double lens system - one to
    focus on the image and the other to focus on the surface to detect
    dirt and scratches. The V700 comes with ICE technology. See
    http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?oid=63056499



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:29:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:

    >Eric Stevens writes:
    >
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>
    >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?

    >
    >At least at one time you could buy static brushes with a small bit of
    >radioactive isotope built in (electroplated polonium, as I recall). The
    >radioactivity was weak but sufficient to discharge static electricity at very
    >close range, so as you passed the brush over the film, the isotope discharged
    >any static build-up, making it easier to remove the dust for good.
    >
    >I don't know if these are still sold. People tend to be more fearful now than
    >they once were, so perhaps not (although there was nothing dangerous about
    >these brushes unless you broke the isotope out of the brush and ate it, and
    >perhaps not even then).


    Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking of doing that except for the
    fact that today (in New Zealand) is a public holiday.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 01:03:31 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >On 2010-06-05 21:13:59 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>
    >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Kinetronics has several tools for anti-static film cleaning at
    >different price points. See if any of these will help;
    >
    >http://kinetronics.com/store/ministat.html
    >http://kinetronics.com/store/kinestat_prod.html
    >http://kinetronics.com/store/kse.html
    >http://www.kinetronics.com/store/2005_IonizerFilmCleaner.pdf


    Now thats a good suggestion. I won't do it your way but I will rig up
    a pair of antistatic brushes designed to clean vinyl LP records.
    http://www.productwiki.com/carbon-fibre-record-cleaning-brush/

    Second thoughts. These brushes use carbon fibres. Am I introducing a
    scratch problem? I don't think so. Vinyl records are likely to be
    vulnerable to scratch damage also. Still I will tread cautiously.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 03:45:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley
    <> wrote:

    >On Jun 5, 11:13 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>
    >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >It isnt winter where humidity could be 10%, Ive scanned at low
    >humidity with no issues, 60% is actualy high.


    That was my point.

    >Its dirt and dust years of poor handling and storage


    It's film, which has been out of its plastic sleeve only for scanning.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 10:52:58 -0500, "George Anthony"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>
    >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >I don't doubt you have dust on your slides (nearly impossible not to) but,
    >if you haven't all ready, I'd make sure the scanner itself is dust free.
    >Between the slides and the scanner, you're talking a lot of dust possible.


    As far as I can tell, everything is clean.
    >
    >
    >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---




    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:05:36 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>
    >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>
    >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>
    >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >May seem like blasphemy, but actually polishing both sides of the negative
    >with a soft-lint free cloth, then using compressed air blasts seems to work
    >very well.


    I wouldn't use the air out of an ordinary oil lubricated compressor.
    Probably you are thinking of 'canned air' which is not actually air at
    all. Depending on the 'air', this can cause a static electricity
    problem, but its worth a shot. Many thanks.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens

    Rich Guest

    On Jun 6, 7:31 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:05:36 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    > >Eric Stevens <> wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    > >> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.

    >
    > >> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    > >> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.

    >
    > >> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    > >> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    > >> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    > >> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    > >> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    > >> humidity has dropped to 60%.

    >
    > >> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?

    >
    > >> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >May seem like blasphemy, but actually polishing both sides of the negative
    > >with a soft-lint free cloth, then using compressed air blasts seems to work
    > >very well.

    >
    > I wouldn't use the air out of an ordinary oil lubricated compressor.
    > Probably you are thinking of 'canned air' which is not actually air at
    > all. Depending on the 'air', this can cause a static electricity
    > problem, but its worth a shot. Many thanks.
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    I did darkroom printing for a long time and unless you have a dust-
    proof room, particles seem to glue themselves to the wet emulsion
    surface, hence the need for some physical method of removing them. I
    envy those who had dustless drying cabinets. Use micro-filtered
    compressed "gas" just prior to printing or scanning. I'm wondering how
    well the wet-mount negative holders abate dust visibility?
    Rich, Jun 7, 2010
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 11:24:03 +1200, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 01:03:31 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2010-06-05 21:13:59 -0700, Eric Stevens <> said:
    >>
    >>> For my sins I have recently been attempting to use my Epson V700
    >>> scanner to digitize some 35mm Fuji negatives.
    >>>
    >>> I find that no matter how I try I cannot get rid of dust. The best
    >>> examples are barely tolerable and the worst look like a blizzard.
    >>>
    >>> I've been using various combinations of brush, bellow and conductive
    >>> cloth but nothing seems to work. In fact, I think my efforts are
    >>> making things worse for me by building up an electrostatic charge on
    >>> everything around me. Its not that the atmosphere is dry at the
    >>> moment. We are just seeing the last of a tropical depression and the
    >>> humidity has dropped to 60%.
    >>>
    >>> What am I doing wrong or, better still, what should I be doing right?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks in advance to all and sundry.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Eric Stevens

    >>
    >>Kinetronics has several tools for anti-static film cleaning at
    >>different price points. See if any of these will help;
    >>
    >>http://kinetronics.com/store/ministat.html
    >>http://kinetronics.com/store/kinestat_prod.html
    >>http://kinetronics.com/store/kse.html
    >>http://www.kinetronics.com/store/2005_IonizerFilmCleaner.pdf

    >
    >Now thats a good suggestion. I won't do it your way but I will rig up
    >a pair of antistatic brushes designed to clean vinyl LP records.
    >http://www.productwiki.com/carbon-fibre-record-cleaning-brush/
    >
    >Second thoughts. These brushes use carbon fibres. Am I introducing a
    >scratch problem? I don't think so. Vinyl records are likely to be
    >vulnerable to scratch damage also. Still I will tread cautiously.


    Just using a single antistatic brush makes a vast improvement.
    Virtually all traces of general dust have now gone. Unfortunately I am
    still dealing with remnant hairs from our ancient Balinese cat who
    died at the age of 21 about 18 months ago. All the brush seems to do
    with these is align them. So far the 'heal' tool in NX2 seems to be
    able to deal with them.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Jun 7, 2010
    #11
  12. Eric Stevens

    Pete Guest

    On 2010-06-07 16:50:14 +0100, rwalker said:

    > On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:03:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Unfortunately I am
    >> still dealing with remnant hairs from our ancient Balinese cat who
    >> died at the age of 21 about 18 months ago.

    >
    > Cat hair seems to be one of the most adhesive materials in the world.


    The only thing it doesn't stick to is the cat.

    --
    Pete
    Pete, Jun 7, 2010
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens

    Ken Walls Guest

    On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 17:06:28 -0400, rwalker <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:15:36 -0700, Savageduck
    ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2010-06-07 08:50:14 -0700, rwalker <> said:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:03:58 +1200, Eric Stevens
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Unfortunately I am
    >>>> still dealing with remnant hairs from our ancient Balinese cat who
    >>>> died at the age of 21 about 18 months ago.
    >>>
    >>> Cat hair seems to be one of the most adhesive materials in the world.

    >>
    >>Not if you wet shave the cat once a week. ;-)

    >
    >I presume you use welder's gloves and wear iron suit to do that. :)


    It's far easier to just shave them when they're dead.
    Ken Walls, Jun 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens

    Peter Irwin Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:29:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>At least at one time you could buy static brushes with a small bit of
    >>radioactive isotope built in (electroplated polonium, as I recall). The
    >>radioactivity was weak but sufficient to discharge static electricity at very
    >>close range, so as you passed the brush over the film, the isotope discharged
    >>any static build-up, making it easier to remove the dust for good.
    >>
    >>I don't know if these are still sold. People tend to be more fearful now than
    >>they once were, so perhaps not (although there was nothing dangerous about
    >>these brushes unless you broke the isotope out of the brush and ate it, and
    >>perhaps not even then).

    >
    > Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking of doing that except for the
    > fact that today (in New Zealand) is a public holiday.
    >

    Staticmaster brushes are still made:
    <http://www.amstat.com/solutions/staticmaster.html>
    The 1 inch brush is rated at 250 microcuries, so it would almost
    certainly be very bad to eat, but pretty safe when used as intended.
    The manufacturer can probably tell you if and where you can buy
    them in NZ. They used to be commonly available in photography stores,
    but seem to be less common now because of the drop in demand for
    film related products. As I remember, they were not cheap
    and the polonium isotope had a relatively short half-life, so you
    needed a new cartridge for the brush after a couple years or so.

    Peter.
    --
    Peter Irwin, Jun 8, 2010
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <2010060720442816807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-06-07 19:36:03 -0700, Peter Irwin <> said:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 09:29:30 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> At least at one time you could buy static brushes with a small bit of
    >>>> radioactive isotope built in (electroplated polonium, as I recall). The
    >>>> radioactivity was weak but sufficient to discharge static electricity at very
    >>>> close range, so as you passed the brush over the film, the isotope discharged
    >>>> any static build-up, making it easier to remove the dust for good.
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't know if these are still sold. People tend to be more fearful now than
    >>>> they once were, so perhaps not (although there was nothing dangerous about
    >>>> these brushes unless you broke the isotope out of the brush and ate it, and
    >>>> perhaps not even then).
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for the suggestion. I was thinking of doing that except for the
    >>> fact that today (in New Zealand) is a public holiday.
    >>>

    >> Staticmaster brushes are still made:
    >> <http://www.amstat.com/solutions/staticmaster.html>
    >> The 1 inch brush is rated at 250 microcuries, so it would almost
    >> certainly be very bad to eat, but pretty safe when used as intended.
    >> The manufacturer can probably tell you if and where you can buy
    >> them in NZ. They used to be commonly available in photography stores,
    >> but seem to be less common now because of the drop in demand for
    >> film related products. As I remember, they were not cheap
    >> and the polonium isotope had a relatively short half-life, so you
    >> needed a new cartridge for the brush after a couple years or so.
    >>
    >> Peter.

    >
    >Damn!
    >You just reminded me. I have two of those brushes packed away with
    >about 1500 LPs, turntable, speakers, a Marantz amp, a Denon amp, and
    >plenty of dust.
    >I haven't gone through any of that stuff in about 20 years.

    k

    Don't rush. The Staticmaster web site says the active bit should be
    replaced annually. I dunno if they used the same radioactive element
    years ago but I'd check.

    If you call up the manufacturer about 20 years old goods you might
    find people in hazmat suits knocking at your door.
    --
    Al Dykes
    News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
    - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
    Al Dykes, Jun 8, 2010
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens

    Bruce Guest

    On Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:44:28 -0700, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >Also in my vinyl antistatic weaponry I had a Discwasher kit complete
    >with Zerostat gun, which worked pretty well. ...and I just dug it out
    >of the pile of long forgotten stuff. Amazingly enough it still works.
    >
    >I just found one on eBay.
    >http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Discwas...ltDomain_0&hash=item3a5ba82bec#ht_1011wt_1139
    >
    >It seems Amazon has the current version along with some other items
    >meant for vinyl.
    ><
    >http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&ke...=aps&hvadid=3069528329&ref=pd_sl_61wb5tq2rt_b
    >>

    >
    >Another source for the current version.
    >< http://www.tweakshop.com/Zerostat.html >



    I still have my original Zerostat and I still use it occasionally for
    film strips before scanning. Actually I *always* use it on the film
    strips, I only scan film occasionally these days. ;-)

    It is also very useful when loading negatives into the enlarger. But
    I don't suppose very many people subscribing here do that now ...

    The price for the new one seems high. New Zerostat pistols sell in
    the UK for no more than GBP 45.00 which is less than US $70.
    Bruce, Jun 8, 2010
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens

    scott nalter Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:40:40 +0200, Mxsmanic <> wrote:

    >
    >It's best not to try to open the polonium source, though, and I recall that
    >you weren't supposed to just throw it into the trash to discard it (also true
    >of things like smoke detectors, which sometimes contain radioactive sources
    >like americium). Unlike polonium, americium stays radioactive for the life of
    >the product it's in (half-life over 400 years).


    Without going to look this up and wading through tomes of websites, I have
    to ask. Could one use the radioactive source from an old smoke-detector to
    make an effective anti-static brush? Or are the particles emitted (and rate
    of decay) by the americium unable to accomplish the task as effectively? I
    was thinking that the americium from this readily available and often free
    source might make a nice replacement for all those anti-static brushes that
    have lost their "oomph", without having to pay an arm and a leg for yearly
    polonium refills, for 400 years.
    scott nalter, Jun 8, 2010
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens

    Bruce Guest

    On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:51:09 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:
    >I still have my original Zerostat and I still use it occasionally for
    >film strips before scanning. Actually I *always* use it on the film
    >strips, I only scan film occasionally these days. ;-)
    >
    >It is also very useful when loading negatives into the enlarger. But
    >I don't suppose very many people subscribing here do that now ...
    >
    >The price for the new one seems high. New Zerostat pistols sell in
    >the UK for no more than GBP 45.00 which is less than US $70.



    Apologies, for a proper comparison I should have deducted UK Value
    Added Tax (sales tax) which is included in the price. Without taxes,
    the Zerostat costs no more than GBP 38.50 which is less than US $60.

    The $100 price quoted therefore seems excessively high.
    Bruce, Jun 8, 2010
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010060720442816807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

    >
    > Damn!
    > You just reminded me. I have two of those brushes packed away with about
    > 1500 LPs, turntable, speakers, a Marantz amp, a Denon amp, and plenty of
    > dust.
    > I haven't gone through any of that stuff in about 20 years.
    >


    My Marantz amp=pre amp just sits on a shelf, connected to nothing. At one
    time I thought I would use it for TV surround sound, but current systems are
    so good and so cheap, that it is not good for anything but an honorable
    retirement.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jun 8, 2010
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens

    Peter Guest

    "Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > The actual radioactivity of a polonium source after 20 years is 1/(2^53),
    > or
    > about
    >
    > 0.00000000000001.1624731 %
    >
    > of the original level. It decades into lead, which is not radioactive. So
    > after 20 years, a polonium source is no longer hazardous (and it is
    > actually
    > lead rather than polonium).



    That would be two decades

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Jun 8, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
    DVD Verdict
    Feb 26, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    354
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,890
    Michael Benveniste
    Jun 13, 2006
  4. DeanB

    Dust-off function (Nikon)

    DeanB, Mar 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    303
    C J Campbell
    Mar 8, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    687
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page