Bob,
[snip]
My personal experience is that a roll of
PJC1600, not in camera, withstood 4 passes through these X-ray machines
(plus on year in
the back of a Toyota Supra in the California sun) and still produced the
photo below.
http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzyHLn-p29100445
Very nice
.
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Larson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: OT:RE: Chernobyl effect on film (fwd)
Bob,
[snip]
My personal experience is that a roll of
PJC1600, not in camera, withstood 4 passes through t
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: OT:RE: Chernobyl effect on film (fwd)
This is the text that goes with the image:
--
About 10:00PM. There had been a rain. This is my favorite part of Toronto,
and this is how I remember it.
Peter Smith wrote:
Experienced astronauts talked about "seeing" radiation flashes probably caused by
particles passing across the retina (or maybe through the brain).
Put a whole new light (sorry) on the "moon photos were faked
in." conspiracy theories. Ten days in space with no
mike wilson wrote:
Put a whole new light (sorry) on the "moon photos were faked
in." conspiracy theories. Ten days in space with no
(effective) protection should have _some_ effect on film,
shouldn't it?
Yes, it should. But the film wasn't ten days in space with no
effective
Keep in mind that the US Government has flown film in space for years. Photography from
spy satellites was exclusively film based for years. The satellites employed detachable
reentry vehicles for the film which were snatched in mid air over the pacific by C-130s
snagging their chutes. The last
6 matches
Mail list logo
