Kodak safety films? Were films particularly dangerous up until that point?

jon: Yeah! They were nitrate films that had a nasty tendency to catch on fire when they weren’t deteriorating.

http://www.brianpritcha…

Yes!

The original base material for photographic film was “celluloid”, nitrocellulose with camphor as a plasticiser. It caught fire, and burned with great enthusiasm, at the drop of a hat. This was not a big deal for still photography, but if a movie projector jammed the film in front of the hot bulb, the projectionist could suddenly discover why the projection booth had an asbestos lining.

(Ping-pong balls are still made of celluloid. Everybody should set at least one ping-pong ball on fire for fun.)

“Safety film” was cellulose acetate, which turned out to rot away over time, but was much less dangerous.

And finally according to the Library of Congress “Nitrate film is highly flammable, ignites easily, and cannot be extinguished after burning has begun.”

My grandfather lost his job as a locomotive engineer during the depression, he had to take a job driving movie reels between cinemas in eastern Ontario in the middle of the night. Ballsy job.

Considering the way he normally drove, that probably had less effect on the actuarial assessment of his risk while driving than you might think.

Rent “Cinema Paradiso” to find out more about nitrocellulose based film. Good movie.

The Home Movie Projector really lead the way to ‘adult’ entertainment films. Ah science….isn’t it great.

Science? Technology, actually.

My apology Firebrand38 for using the wrong word. Sometimes I do that. I’ll try not to make that mistake again.

DouglasUrantia: No worries, I’m sure that it happens a lot at your age.

Firebrand: Ad hominem remarks are very revealing…thank you.

DouglasUrantia: Yeah like a lot of people you don’t know what ad hominem means either. Actually Argumentum ad Hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.

Responding to someone’s sarcasm with a crack of my own doesn’t qualify as ad hominem.

Science (theory of how) and technology (knowledge of how to build it) are two different things. get over it.

Firebrand: Yes, it does but you fail to realize that. Good try though.

You’re need to be correct is overwhelming you.

DouglasUrantia: And your indifference to being wrong is puzzling.

Its so cute to see you guys bicker.

I’ve had the joy of seeing a ping-pong ball ignited- it was the highlight of a field trip my senior year of college. Yes, that’s right. I was in art school, so science was pretty thrilling to us. (Now I’ve seen the light and am taking chemistry classes…)

(Hint to those who want to try it- needle nose pliers. And pull your hair back.)