And?  Do you really care that a Pokemon article might have it wrong, or do
you just hate it that some people are interested in such things?  As far as
I can tell, your signature snip at wikipedia has nothing to substantiate it.

Do the critics point out that before the internet, there was no way to find
out how many hits there were on anything? - How did they know how many
Pokemon characters were looked up in the Encyclopedia Britannica? (for
example)

I really could care less about the above mentioned arcana, and I
suspect Enc. Britannica feel the same way.  The point is that for
factual information, Wiki is fairly complete and reasonably accurate.
I have never failed to find helpful information in it.  In some
instances I've been disappointed at the sparseness of information.  In
a very few areas I've added to articles, corrected grammar and sentence
structure and factual errors.  That the "bulk" of Wiki is not of
interest to me is beside the point.   And better yet, unlike the 20
year old Britanica in the school library, the Wiki is up to date and
continuously so.  As I said in my post, and that you saw fit to snip,
it does continue to improve over time.  It's only 5 years old.  How
long did it take Britanica to become a full fledged volume?

Your signature being an attack on the Wiki is in the worst traditions
of criticism.  Find a spot in the Wiki that you are expert in and
improve it yourself.  That would be a contribution, as others
contribute to other parts of the Wiki.  Attacking Wiki
non-constructively is nothing but being petty.

Enc. Britanica have been subtly attacking Wiki too ... but, perhaps
they have a vested interest?

Cheers,
Alan

Ken Hart spake thus:

Which would be totally unnecessary, given the age of the latent image,
assuming it has been stored as the OP described for most of that time.
Just develop normally.

We can only assume you're perfect...(perfect a.shole is more like it).

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote:

I was going to say the same.
The biggest threats to this film over time are light, heat, and the
chemicals in the film itself.

I thought he might have been referring to neutrinos, which can go through
the entire earth....But they don't seem to have much effect on film.......

I had meant tom say gamma rays which will damage film over time.

of

Seems to me that if you believe what William posted was inaccurate it
would be easy to find references that would contradict what he posted.
But then you don't really believe there is anything wrong with what
he posted do you?

Scott

From the US Environmental Protection Agency (presumable no zit-faced
teenager edited the EPA's website ... we hope)
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/alpha.htm

"An alpha particle is identical to a helium nucleus having two protons
and two neutrons. It is a relatively heavy, high-energy particle, with a
positive charge of +2 from its two protons. Alpha particles have a
velocity in air of approximately one-twentieth the speed of light,
depending upon the individual particle's energy.

"When the ratio of neutrons to protons in the nucleus is too low,
certain atoms restore the balance by emitting alpha particles. For
example: Polonium-210 has 126 neutrons and 84 protons, a ratio of 1.50
to 1. Following radioactive decay by the emission of an alpha particle,
the ratio becomes 124 neutrons to 82 protons, or 1.51 to 1.
Alpha emitting atoms tend to be very large atoms (that is, they have
high atomic numbers). With some exceptions, naturally occurring alpha
emitters have atomic numbers of at least 82 (the element lead)."

Alpha emitters include plutonium-236, uranium-238, radium-226,
 radon-222, and polonium-210. [paraphrased]

"The health effects of alpha particles depend heavily upon how exposure
takes place. External exposure (external to the body) is of far less
concern than internal exposure, because alpha particles lack the energy
to penetrate the outer dead layer of skin.

"However, if alpha emitters have been inhaled, ingested (swallowed), or
absorbed into the blood stream, sensitive living tissue can be exposed
to alpha radiation. The resulting biological damage increases the risk
of cancer; in particular, alpha radiation is known to cause lung cancer
in humans when alpha emitters are inhaled."

Beta particles:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/beta.htm

"Beta particles are subatomic particles ejected from the nucleus of some
radioactive atoms. They are equivalent to electrons. The difference is
that beta particles originate in the nucleus and electrons originate
outside the nucleus. 

"Beta particles have an electrical charge of -1. Beta particles have a
mass of 549 millionths of one atomic mass unit, or AMU, which is about
1/2000 of the mass of a proton or neutron. The speed of individual beta
particles depends on how much energy they have, and varies over a wide
range. It is their excess energy, in the form of speed, that causes harm
to living cells. When transferred, this energy can break chemical bonds
and form ions."

Gamma Rays / X-Rays (the ones that fog film):
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/gamma.htm

"Gamma radiation is very high-energy ionizing radiation. Gamma photons
have about 10,000 times as much energy as the photons in the visible
range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Gamma photons have no mass and no electrical charge--they are pure
electromagnetic energy.

"Because of their high energy, gamma photons travel at the speed of
light and can cover hundreds to thousands of meters in air before
spending their energy. They can pass through many kinds of materials,
including human tissue. Very dense materials, such as lead, are commonly
used as shielding to slow or stop gamma photons.

"Their wave lengths are so short that they must be measured in
nanometers, billionths of a meter. They range from 3/100ths to
3/1,000ths of a nanometer."

Remember, just because it's in Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't true.

Well, if you doubt it, google is full of links to other sources of
information about alpha particles....I was a radiation worker for Stanford
University for 28 years, and I can tell you that wikipedia is right on the
money about this one........

I believe that there is some oversight to the Wikipedia. Said teenager
would probably be banned in short order.

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net

OTOH, since the info in question conforms with what I learned as a US
Army Nuclear-Biological-Chemical warfare specialist (MOS:54E/B[now
74D]), what does it matter if it came via Wikipedia?

Decon procedure for Alpha particles is to brush dust off, avoiding
inhalation (keep your pro-mask on).

*FM 3-3-1 Nuclear Contamination Avoidance*

... has this to say about Alpha rediation:

"                      *Considering, however, that alpha
only travels in the open air to 4 centimeters from the
source and cannot penetrate one to two sheets of ordinary
paper, it cannot penetrate the first layer of human skin.*
Alpha is considered an internal or inhalation hazard. In
most situations this internal hazard would not affect the
immediate military operation because its effects on the
body would not be felt until many years later. Therefore,
alpha is not considered to be tactically significant."

Tom Phillips spake thus:

Well, you're right, it is merely my experience; but I've done it more
than once with the same good results (I had a bunch of exposed rolls
lying around), so I have to think it was something more than just plain
dumb luck the first time. I could see how fog could develop, but
apparently my film was kept in conditions that prevented that from
happening.

Newton's first Law of Motion. Quantitatively assessed using his
Second Law of motion with regard to the electron activity. ;)