CCC Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf_s4XeihAo

This guy, going by the name Vegetable Police, has "tested" the Sony RX100-3 and claims it emits dangerous amounts of radiation.

I'll let you view the video then come to the same conclusion that he's quite bonkers - reading up around this & what I can remember from my degree course, he's just wrong in there being any sort of radiation risk at all I used the camera solidly for two weeks and if there was a radiation risk, my ginger hair would have fallen out so I more than most would have been keen for this to be true

Why I do like this is that it's a great example of confirmation bias; how people with a delusion see whatever they want to see to support their pre-existing position despite actual evidence being completely opposed. Interesting view into the human mind

He is talking about electromagnetic radiation rather than radioactivity, so unfortunately your hair is safe.

Any appliance which uses electricity, including the computer you are using to read this post, gives off such radiation. He could probably have done a similar test with any digital camera and achieved much the same result. Another example are mobile phones, about which there were a number of scare stories a while back. In our modern world, these fields are all around us. In any event it occurs naturally and according to Wikipedia includes visible light.

A quick Google for electromagnetic radiation safe levels reveals any number of websites offering advice. This is one I found which appears to offer a balanced view and it admits that there is no reseach to show that there are dangers from electrocmagnetism. Its approach seems to be one of "let's be careful out there" and limit exposure whenever possible.

https://www.defendershield.com/safe-lev ... radiation/

Well ignoring the fact he's using a "ghost detector" as his tool of choice, electromagnetic radiation vs radioactivity are actually the same thing, the differences occurs when the radiation becomes ionising. It's all the same particles whizzing around, it's just wavelength & energy that changes. So low-energy radiation from our phones and cameras is quite safe and that is what's commonly known as EM radiation. The stuff from nuclear reactors and glowing paint is still EM radiation, the only difference this time is that it has enough energy (be it from the mass or speed of the particle) that if it hits something in your body it can interact and cause damage.

If somehow you could pump enough energy into a camera to generate ionising radiation (and the camera survived long enough) you'd be in just as much trouble as if you were loitering around Chernobyl back in the day

The reality is we have nothing at all to worry about. What was interesting is this chap is so fixated on "bad radiation" his entire video escapade is designed to "prove" what he has already come to the conclusion of in his own head, regardless of reality.

I have the RX100 mk1 and think its fantastic, Im sure the mk3 is even better.

However, I dont use the flash as its seems to glow in the dark and illuminate my subjects

davidc wrote:Well ignoring the fact he's using a "ghost detector" as his tool of choice, electromagnetic radiation vs radioactivity are actually the same thing, the differences occurs when the radiation becomes ionising. It's all the same particles whizzing around, it's just wavelength & energy that changes. So low-energy radiation from our phones and cameras is quite safe and that is what's commonly known as EM radiation. The stuff from nuclear reactors and glowing paint is still EM radiation, the only difference this time is that it has enough energy (be it from the mass or speed of the particle) that if it hits something in your body it can interact and cause damage.

If somehow you could pump enough energy into a camera to generate ionising radiation (and the camera survived long enough) you'd be in just as much trouble as if you were loitering around Chernobyl back in the day

The reality is we have nothing at all to worry about. What was interesting is this chap is so fixated on "bad radiation" his entire video escapade is designed to "prove" what he has already come to the conclusion of in his own head, regardless of reality.

That's certainly a better explanation than your initial post. In particular, using the word "radioactive" in the post title gives the misleading impression to the casual observer that the author of the video is claiming the camera is emitting radiation of the undesirable ionising variety. Mind you, that does explain why his meter did not give off a geiger counter rattle.

What did surprise me when I quickly Googled the topic was the number of websites out there authoritavely claiming harmful effects from exposure to EM. The guy in the video is far from alone.

As you say, there's nothing to see here. Move along.

Paul Heester wrote:I have the RX100 mk1 and think its fantastic, Im sure the mk3 is even better.

However, I dont use the flash as its seems to glow in the dark and illuminate my subjects

The strange thing is that my hair started to fall out long before I ever picked up a digital camera.