Don't get the idea that I am in favor of nuclear weapons. In fact the following bit of "alternative-process" photography is enough to convience anyone that they are a bad idea:
In Hiroshima they found "shadow: images of men and women burned into concrete and stone sides of buildings and walls.
Because of the radioactive wastes generated by nuclear power plants, I am not in favor of them either.
Bob Schramm
Check out my web page at:
http://www.SchrammStudio.com
>From: PhotoGecko Austin
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Uranium toning and printing
>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:44:49 -0600
>
>On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 10:29 PM, Robert W. Schramm
>wrote:
>
>>All isotopes of uranium are radioactive. And, therefore all uranium
>>compounds are radioactive. The reason for this is the
>>neutron-proton ratio, but that is another story. U-235 is the
>>fissionable isotope of uranium used as fuel in nuclear reactors and
>>in making atomic bombs. Natuaral uranium is mostly U-238 with some
>>U-235 in very small amounts. U-238 can be placed in a nuclear
>>reactor and exposed to a strong neutron flux therein where it is
>>transmutted into Plutonium 239 which is a fissionable material and
>>can be used as a fuel for a nuclear reactor or for making a nuclear
>>weapon. An atomic bomb is just a very, very fast nuclear reactor
>>running with no controls.
>
>To which PhotoGecko replies:
>
>Now THAT's alternative process!
>
>--any idea of the guide number on that flash?
>
>I hear it contact prints in a nanosecond.
>
>;~>
>__________________________
>John Campbell
>PhotoGecko Studios & Gallery
>1413 South First Street
>Austin, Tx 78704
>
>(512) 797-9375
>
>www.photogecko.com
>
>
>
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>
>>Bob Schramm
>>Check out my web page at:
>>
>> http://www.SchrammStudio.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: bobkiss@caribsurf.com
>>>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>>>Subject: RE: Uranium toning and printing
>>>Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:16:58 -0400
>>>
>>>HI AGAIN!
>>> Again, I am asking for confirmation. I thought that one
>>>isotope
>>>of Uranium (the one that was used for most uranium compounds for
>>>sale
>>>to we non governmental mortals) was stable and non radioactive and
>>>the
>>>other was unstable and radioactive. I seem to remember 235 and
>>>238.
>>>Is it that one cannot get a pure sample of the stable isotope so
>>>any
>>>compound containing uranium would have traces of the unstable
>>>isotope
>>>and be slightly radioactive? Otherwise compounds made of the
>>>stable
>>>isotope shouldn't be radioactive at all. Si? No? Forse?
>>> CHEERS!
>>> BOB
>>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list? MSN Shopping has lined
>>up some good bets! http://shopping.msn.com
>>
>>
>