Why we will never see anymore legendary lenses from Nikon!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Paul Furman, Mar 17, 2007.

  1. Paul Furman

    THO Guest

     
    THO, Mar 19, 2007
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. In message Rita Ä Berkowitz
    sprach forth the following:
    1. We're talking about lead from Nikkor lenses.

    2. Your example is a perfectly acceptable method of strengthening the gene
    pool.
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 19, 2007
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Furman

    Grumman-581 Guest

    We could hope that would be the case, but the actuality of it is that it
    just results in rap-crap and hip-hop music... Yeah, I'm using the term
    'music' rather liberally with respect to the overdriven subwoofer noise
    that they manage to generate from their radios...
     
    Grumman-581, Mar 19, 2007
    #63
  4. Paul Furman

    Joan Guest

    Bhopal, Chernobyl...

    Sorry I don't have the names of the people.

    --
    Joan
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

    message : In message Paul
    Furman
    : sprach forth the following:
    :
    : > Come on. They say right there that the new solutions work at least
    as
    : > well as the old poison crap.
    :
    : Name one person harmed by "the old poison crap". Put the name of
    that
    : person right here: __________________________________
     
    Joan, Mar 19, 2007
    #64
  5. Paul Furman

    Toby Guest

    At least recent Nikon lenses were not radioactive like apo-lanthars...

    Toby
     
    Toby, Mar 19, 2007
    #65
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    ...
    I suspect not. "Normal" focal length prime lenses are not high on the
    list of lenses being demanded by the consumer today. Photography is a
    market driven industry and a few people who really want lens A are not going
    to get the same attention as the many people who want lens B.
     
    Joseph Meehan, Mar 19, 2007
    #66
  7. If Nikon reintroduces the 28/1.4 as a DX lens this will be the last nail in
    their coffin. This will push me over the edge to fully migrate to Canon.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 19, 2007
    #67
  8. In message 01.iinet.net.au, Joan sprach forth the following:
    Nikon lenses killed people in Chernobyl?

    Oh, never mind, you just don't understand the topic, top-posting idiot.
     
    Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute, Mar 19, 2007
    #68
  9. Paul Furman

    C J Campbell Guest

    You know, we recently replaced a toilet with a new Kohler 1.6 gpf model
    and that thing has never missed a flush. It works much better than any
    of the old style toilets in the house.

    Everyone here knows, too, that they all get a real workout because I am
    so full of it.
     
    C J Campbell, Mar 19, 2007
    #69
  10. Paul Furman

    C J Campbell Guest

    There are, but the studies themselves are often highly suspect. There
    were numerous 'studies' saying that each chemical used at the old
    Asarco plant in Tacoma was causing so many cancer deaths per year, for
    example. Trouble was, if you added up all the cancer deaths caused by
    each chemical, they totaled by several thousand more than the entire
    number of cancer deaths in the whole state! The same thing happened
    with 'studies' showing that Hanford caused cancer deaths among the
    Indian population downstream. Again, the number of cancer deaths should
    have wiped out the entire population more than 50 years ago.

    You hear these studies reported on Oprah or Donahue, but what happens
    is that the people doing the studies assume that the number of deaths
    is underreported (a not unreasonable assumption) so they put in a fudge
    factor to account for the underreported deaths. Then each reporter or
    activist who gets the study adds in an additional fudge factor until
    you get these impossible numbers. A good example was the recent Johns
    Hopkins 'study' of civilian deaths in Iraq that was widely reported in
    the press, despite the fact that the study had only two data points and
    had a statistical margin of error of more than 300%! Yet the press
    credulously reported that something like 25 million people had died,
    despite the physical impossibility of the statistic.

    Another one was when the Americans were fighting in Beirut. The press
    simply reported a bad number that was passed on to them, saying that
    the battleship "New Jersey" had fired 30,000 rounds from its main guns
    into the city. The fact that this represented more firepower than
    several atomic bombs, yet fighting was still going on in the city,
    seemed to escape them, as did any concept of just how many rounds the
    "New Jersey" was capable of storing and how many rounds could have been
    transported even if the entire Navy did nothing else.

    So individual studies should be given a serious reality check, simply
    because there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics." The fact is,
    millions of kids are not dying of cancer and never were. The fact is,
    millions of kids do not suffer brain damage in every city. The fact is,
    the studies say that lead and arsenic cause millions of cases of cancer
    and hundreds of millions of cases of brain damage, yet no one can
    actually find any of these cases.

    That said, it is obvious that these pollutants are causing some cases
    of cancer and some cases of brain damage, just not nearly as many as
    claimed. The question is whether lead and arsenic in photographic
    lenses is contributing to any of these. Probably not. If lead and
    arsenic in the manufacturing process are contributing to these, then
    perhaps better emissions controls would be more effective than a total
    ban.
     
    C J Campbell, Mar 19, 2007
    #70
  11. Paul Furman

    C J Campbell Guest

    So, kids eat a lot of dirt from landfills?
     
    C J Campbell, Mar 19, 2007
    #71
  12. Paul Furman

    RichA Guest

     
    RichA, Mar 19, 2007
    #72
  13. Paul Furman

    RichA Guest


    Only in the warped minds of scientifically-illiterate envirokooks.
     
    RichA, Mar 19, 2007
    #73
  14. Did you get the lowboy with the exploding scuba tank? Kohler had a recall
    on these and gave you a $100 towards a new toilet. It kinda sucks when they
    only give you $100 for a $500 defective toilet.






    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Mar 19, 2007
    #74
  15. Paul Furman

    Tom Ross Guest


    No, but lead and other heavy metals in landfills can leach into the
    soil, groundwater and surface water. And that is not bueno.

    As for lead in glass, IINM the problem isn't the lead IN the glass but
    the particulate emisions from the manufacturing process. Some of the
    lead is vaporized in the manufacturing process, and it recrystalizes
    in the flue gas.


    TR
     
    Tom Ross, Mar 19, 2007
    #75
  16. Hmmm. <considering it carefully> Okay, that seems about right.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Mar 19, 2007
    #76
  17. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    That is approximately the entire population of Iraq. Well everyone dies
    every 70 years or so :)
     
    Paul Furman, Mar 20, 2007
    #77
  18. Paul Furman

    THO Guest

    Citations about these frequent misreporting incidents?
    Do you have a citation for that one? It's hard to believe that a single
    media outlet reported 25 million dead.
     
    THO, Mar 20, 2007
    #78
  19. Paul Furman

    THO Guest

    You're an exceptional sock puppet. Congrats!
     
    THO, Mar 20, 2007
    #79
  20. Paul Furman

    THO Guest

    RichA, when did you become an expert on kooks?
     
    THO, Mar 20, 2007
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.