minimizing harm

Do you have any microscopy questions, which you are afraid to ask? This is your place.
Message
Author
mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#31 Post by mintakax » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:07 pm

75RR wrote:
I have located a couple of Olympus BH2/BHS and Nikon Optiphot 2 scopes but before I buy I would really appreciate anyones thoughts on whether I might be better served with an inverted microscope ? There seems to be a lot of these on the used market. For examination and video recording (important to me) of pond and water organisms, how would an inverted scope compare ? It seems I would be looking through the bottom of dish rather than a slide ? Would there be more issues with creatures traveling in and out of focus ? They also seem to be limited to 40x objectives, but 40x has seemed sufficient so far for me. I know the inverted scopes are larger, but I have a dedicated table. How about from the standpoint of returning creatures unharmed ?

Have a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=7384&p=65044
Thanks ! I ended up getting a BH2 BHS that I think I'll be happy with. Looking forward to getting started.

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona

Re: minimizing harm

#32 Post by 75RR » Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:12 pm

I ended up getting a BH2 BHS that I think I'll be happy with. Looking forward to getting started.
Congratulations! Do post some photos of it in the My microscope section when it arrives. We would all like to see it.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#33 Post by mintakax » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:23 am

75RR wrote:
I ended up getting a BH2 BHS that I think I'll be happy with. Looking forward to getting started.
Congratulations! Do post some photos of it in the My microscope section when it arrives. We would all like to see it.
Will do ! Thanks to all for helping ( my bow emoji didn't translate :) )

MichaelG.
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: NorthWest England

Re: minimizing harm

#34 Post by MichaelG. » Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:53 pm

mintakax wrote:I ended up getting a BH2 BHS that I think I'll be happy with. Looking forward to getting started.
Congratulations !!

As mentioned in my recent personal message: You might consider the posibility of adapting the lamphouse to take fibre optic ... This should provide harmless 'cold' lighting [physical temperature] whether you use LED or Tungsten as your source.

This example is for a Zeiss, but the principle should be easily adaptable to the Olympus

http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/ind ... fibre.html

MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'

MicroBob
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am

Re: minimizing harm

#35 Post by MicroBob » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:57 pm

Hobbyst46 wrote:BUT filter out much of the short wavelength light. That is, cutoff much of the light below 450nm.
I found an interesting diagram that shows the impact of b/w photo filters: https://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/b+ ... ndbuch.pdf , page 11.
The light yellow filter would reduce the blue peak and cut of all light that comes close to being UV. I don't know whether this would give an beautiful light quality though.

Bob

Hobbyst46
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#36 Post by Hobbyst46 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:36 am

MicroBob wrote:
Hobbyst46 wrote:BUT filter out much of the short wavelength light. That is, cutoff much of the light below 450nm.
I found an interesting diagram that shows the impact of b/w photo filters: https://www.blende7.at/datenblaetter/b+ ... ndbuch.pdf , page 11.
The light yellow filter would reduce the blue peak and cut of all light that comes close to being UV. I don't know whether this would give an beautiful light quality though.

Bob
Hi Bob,
Back in 02/2018, in the thread
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5686&hilit=KR12
MichaelG and I discussed LED light filtration, specifically the output spectrum (about 7-8 posts from the bottom of page 1 of the thread).
A very comprehensive compilation of B+W filter transmission spectra exists under the title: "FILTER HANDOOK B+W FILTERS".
I downloaded it in the past, but cannot find it any more. Think that it is a Schott or Schneider-Kreutznach publication.
ABout the visual appearance of the image - for my LED of 6500K, I tried cutoff filters from 410 to 450nm, camera yellow filters, camera orange filters, 81A, A2, and I think the optimum is KR12, or somewhere between 81A and KR12. Just a personal preference, though. Still not as nice as halogen+blue filter...
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10, Olympus VMZ stereo

MicroBob
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am

Re: minimizing harm

#37 Post by MicroBob » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:30 am

Hi Doron,
my link leads to this filter handbook in german language, looks like an older edition, perhaps 1990 or so.
The last LEDs I used were either warm-white 2700K (nice with a blue filter) or neutral white 4000K. These have much less of a blue peak to begin with, but from the light colour there is also less room to reduce the peak further.
I once had a b/w enlarger with a variable contrast head. The 250W halogen bulb illuminated a white box through two filter wheels to provide a mixture between orange an magenta. This light was then used to project the image on the base plate and to make best use of variable contrast paper. But it is probably not easy to make such a design compact, cheap and efficient enough to make it interesting for microscope upgrades and to close the gap around 500nm in the typical LED spectrum. More feasible would be the approach to use a COB LED with LEDs of different wave length combined. Many microscopes use a frosted filter or Lens surface as the new light source and in this case it wouldn't make a difference whether the light comes from ore or more LEDs

Bob

science_dude
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#38 Post by science_dude » Sun Aug 11, 2019 7:45 pm

It's interesting how people here are concerned about not harming creatures that they observe.

I've never heard scientists mention this. Their mice die because of the things scientists do to them all the time, this is business as usual.

And the newest X-Ray microscopy methods send X-Rays of such a high intensity that specimens literally evaporate. But the X-Ray wave is so thin that it has already passed when the specimen destruction occurs, and they observe X-Rays that have been reflected before any destruction has occurred. Again, they don't care about destruction.

MichaelG.
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: NorthWest England

Re: minimizing harm

#39 Post by MichaelG. » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:03 pm

science_dude wrote:It's interesting how people here are concerned about not harming creatures that they observe.
The author of the opening post made his position very clear:
I am a devout Buddhist and harming other beings for recreational purposes does not sit well with me personally.
and perhaps caused us all to reflect a little.

The resulting discussion has been interesting and repectful
... I feel that we are all, perhaps, a litle better for participating.

MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'

MicroBob
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am

Re: minimizing harm

#40 Post by MicroBob » Sun Aug 11, 2019 8:05 pm

When a scientist comes to new information by his experiment this might make up for the damage that is done in that it helps to understand and protect other creatures. For the amateur scientist this is rarely the case, so it is a good attitude to not increase harm to creatures and environment for this hobby. In my view this is a point that is discussed too little.

Bob

apochronaut
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: minimizing harm

#41 Post by apochronaut » Sun Aug 11, 2019 10:34 pm

Causing harm is in fact a grey scale going from intent to cause as much harm as possible to taking every possible personal pain to not cause harm. Every action falls somewhere in the middle and the issue of the perception of harm from the standpoint of the harmee is in fact knowable only to that entity. There is a broadening tendency in society to consider the position of other animal species from our point of view. There is great concern for animal welfare but little concern at all for plant welfare.. Many people that could not chop the head off of a chicken have no problem chopping the head off of a broccoli, which is in fact in the full flower of motherhood. Most that profess to not harm have no clue that the production of all but the most synthetic of foods causes immense harm to trillions of organisms. Every bean consumed, causes harm to millions, a field of cabbages or radishes or any food plant for that matter, has harmed hundreds, if not thousands of mice moles and shrews at the very least and just showering in the morning , or brushing your teeth, or doing your laundry, harms billions of organisms.

Intent might be the fulcrum upon which the harm/no harm teeter totter rests because humans by their very nature are exceptionally harmfull creatures and I have come across no one that can escape that reality.
Last edited by apochronaut on Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

science_dude
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:57 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#42 Post by science_dude » Sun Aug 11, 2019 11:46 pm

MicroBob wrote:When a scientist comes to new information by his experiment this might make up for the damage that is done in that it helps to understand and protect other creatures. For the amateur scientist this is rarely the case, so it is a good attitude to not increase harm to creatures and environment for this hobby. In my view this is a point that is discussed too little.

Bob
I've never considered myself an amateur. I am not a professional researcher, but I have several publications including one in biology. I came here because I am researching what microscope to buy to pursue my scientific interests, but then I might again publish a paper later which puts me outside of the realm of being an amateur. So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)

User avatar
actinophrys
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:45 am
Contact:

Re: minimizing harm

#43 Post by actinophrys » Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:51 am

science_dude wrote:It's interesting how people here are concerned about not harming creatures that they observe.
I've never heard scientists mention this.
Well, here you are: “You should sacrifice bugs only if you have a scientific reason for doing so.” –Thomas Eisner, called the father of chemical ecology, et al.

Concern about harm varies. Plainly some types of knowledge are not gained without it, and the lives of protozoans may not count for very much, but I see no reason to discourage anyone erring on the side of caution. And note on the opposite side of things like X-ray microscopy there are things like Raman spectroscopy, where the chemical composition of specimens can be investigated without destroying them, which have found uses precisely because of that.

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona

Re: minimizing harm

#44 Post by 75RR » Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:57 am

It would be wrong to assume that a lack of concern for animalcules and other small life is the prerogative of a scientific mind.

Rather, it would just seem to indicate a little more thoughtlessness and a little less thoughtfulness.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

User avatar
75RR
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 2:34 am
Location: Estepona

Re: minimizing harm

#45 Post by 75RR » Mon Aug 12, 2019 5:31 am

I came here because I am researching what microscope to buy to pursue my scientific interests ...
The use you are going to put it to is a good start.
Zeiss Standard WL (somewhat fashion challenged) & Wild M8
Olympus E-P2 (Micro Four Thirds Camera)

MichaelG.
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: NorthWest England

Re: minimizing harm

#46 Post by MichaelG. » Mon Aug 12, 2019 7:29 am

science_dude wrote:I've never considered myself an amateur. I am not a professional researcher, but I have several publications including one in biology. I came here because I am researching what microscope to buy to pursue my scientific interests, but then I might again publish a paper later which puts me outside of the realm of being an amateur. So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)
You may like to ponder two simple definitions [*]:
  • An amateur is one who does it for love
    A professional is one who does it for money
Clearly they are not mutually exclusive.

It seems that you consider yourself to be 'semi-professional'
... so, hopefully, you will find your own comfortable position on that continuum, and will decide for yourself what level of harm it is appropriate for you to inflict:
So I am debating if this concern is relevant to me. -)
Ask yourself: Does the end justify the means ?


Meanwhile; if you could let the forum know [in a new topic] the nature of the scientific interests that you wish to pursue; then I'm sure that technical advice will be forthcoming, to inform your purchasing decision.

MichaelG.

[*] others are available, but these fit the present context[/i]
Too many 'projects'

Hobbyst46
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#47 Post by Hobbyst46 » Mon Aug 12, 2019 3:25 pm

apochronaut wrote:Causing harm is in fact a grey scale going from intent to cause as much harm as possible to taking every possible personal pain to not cause harm. Every action falls somewhere in the middle and the issue of the perception of harm from the standpoint of the harmee is in fact knowable only to that entity. There is a broadening tendency in society to consider the position of other animal species from our point of view. There is great concern for animal welfare but little concern at all for plant welfare.. Many people that could not chop the head off of a chicken have no problem chopping the head off of a broccoli, which is in fact in the full flower of motherhood. Most that profess to not harm have no clue that the production of all but the most synthetic of foods causes immense harm to trillions of organisms. Every bean consumed, causes harm to millions, a field of cabbages or radishes or any food plant for that matter, has harmed hundreds, if not thousands of mice moles and shrews at the very least and just showering in the morning , or brushing your teeth, or doing your laundry, harms billions of organisms.

Intent might be the fulcrum upon which the harm/no harm teeter totter rests because humans by their very nature are exceptionally harmfull creatures and I have come across no one that can escape that reslity.
Very well said, very true!
In fact, current global ecological trends to "save the globe" are doomed to fail (IMHO!) exactly because they ignore these facts.
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10, Olympus VMZ stereo

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#48 Post by mintakax » Thu Aug 15, 2019 1:41 am

I truly appreciate everyones opinions and reflections on this topic. I fully realize that it is impossible to live without harming other sentient beings (not talking about vegetables :) ). One cant even take a breath or a step without harming creatures. I know since I have taken up this hobby that I have harmed many. I do feel a connection with the fellow creatures that I have been observing and thanks to some suggestions from this post I have developed some habits that I feel are at least minimizing that harm. It is my intent to always be aware and appreciative of beings (sentient and non) on all scales.
I certainly do not judge anyone else that pursues this hobby (or profession) as I would hope that others would not judge me. I wish peace, health and happiness to you all.

apochronaut
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: minimizing harm

#49 Post by apochronaut » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:41 pm

mintakax wrote: without harming other sentient beings (not talking about vegetables :) ).
I didn't understand the intention of the emoji you attached to that ?

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#50 Post by mintakax » Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:12 pm

apochronaut wrote:
mintakax wrote: without harming other sentient beings (not talking about vegetables :) ).
I didn't understand the intention of the emoji you attached to that ?
The intent was friendly, apologies if it came across otherwise.

apochronaut
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am

Re: minimizing harm

#51 Post by apochronaut » Fri Aug 16, 2019 7:38 pm

Oh, I see. You are friendly towards the vegetables then. That ,makes sense.

User avatar
KurtM
Posts: 1515
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:08 am
Location: League City, Texas
Contact:

Re: minimizing harm

#52 Post by KurtM » Thu Aug 22, 2019 12:58 am

mintakax, since you're relatively new here I'm unclear on whether you are able to swap PMs or not, so would you please drop me PM, or email? I have a Buddhism-related question I'd like to ask, that's off-topic for this forum.
Cheers,
Kurt Maurer
League City, Texas
email: ngc704(at)aol(dot)com
http://sawdustfactory.nfshost.com/microscopes/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/67904872@ ... 912223623/

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#53 Post by mintakax » Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:42 pm

sderiis wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:06 pm
My recent hours with an Olympus BH2 illuminated by an externally fixed 100W halogen lamp, fully support 75RR's experience that heat from such lamp is not necessarily an issue.

My thought about the negligible contribution of LEDs to the environment is the same as Apochronaut's. Global population growth and demand for instrumentation annihilates all benefits of energy savings.
I agree that anything new we buy can contribute to the over consumption mentality that is one of the causes to the mess we have created. As for energy consumption, I also agree with Apochronaut.

But, having fitted LED to my BHS/BH2 I can say, without doubt, that the organisms under the slide cover are not being heated up like they were with Halogen and the water does not dry nearly as quickly. The DIC I use in my system required the halogen to be turned up to max, so that may not be the case with your system. The LED is definitely cooler and brighter. And just to be clear, the "harm" I was referring to in the OP was harm to the organisms, not the environment.

MicroBob
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am

Re: minimizing harm

#54 Post by MicroBob » Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:15 pm

mintakax wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:42 pm
and the water does not dry nearly as quickly.
Hi Dan,
you probably have found there a simple evaluation method for energy input into the slide. It would be difficult to find a fully comarable setup to be used be more than one person. But for personal use to compare two microscopes or two illuminators it will do nicely.
I really like your "minimizing harm" approach. But even for someone who is less aware it is a problem when slides dry out or life form die prematurely.

Bob

mnmyco
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:03 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#55 Post by mnmyco » Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:30 am

Sorry if this is a repeat, but you can block most or all UV with just some clear plastic filters. Lexan will basically block all UV light, though IR will be transmitted.

http://www.plasticgenius.com/2011/05/in ... ssion.html
https://www.acplasticsinc.com/informati ... ansmitting
https://www.eplastics.com/plexiglass/ac ... -filtering


Some websites I have found to have interesting info.

MichaelG.
Posts: 1490
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:24 am
Location: NorthWest England

Re: minimizing harm

#56 Post by MichaelG. » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:31 am

mnmyco wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:30 am
Sorry if this is a repeat, but you can block most or all UV with just some clear plastic filters. Lexan will basically block all UV light, though IR will be transmitted.
Useful links, thanks
... Although it is, of course, the IR which has the heating effect to evaporate the water.

MichaelG.
Too many 'projects'

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#57 Post by mintakax » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:33 am

MicroBob wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 8:15 pm
mintakax wrote:
Fri Oct 04, 2019 1:42 pm
and the water does not dry nearly as quickly.
Hi Dan,
you probably have found there a simple evaluation method for energy input into the slide. It would be difficult to find a fully comarable setup to be used be more than one person. But for personal use to compare two microscopes or two illuminators it will do nicely.
I really like your "minimizing harm" approach. But even for someone who is less aware it is a problem when slides dry out or life form die prematurely.

Bob
Thanks Bob

mintakax
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:06 am
Location: Boulder CO, USA

Re: minimizing harm

#58 Post by mintakax » Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:36 am

MichaelG. wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 4:31 am
mnmyco wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 12:30 am
Sorry if this is a repeat, but you can block most or all UV with just some clear plastic filters. Lexan will basically block all UV light, though IR will be transmitted.
Useful links, thanks
... Although it is, of course, the IR which has the heating effect to evaporate the water.

MichaelG.
It seemed to me that the organisms were more "bothered" by the halogen than the led. I always assumed that the IR was heating them up.
Overall I prefer the led and it is considerably brighter.

MicroBob
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2016 9:11 am

Re: minimizing harm

#59 Post by MicroBob » Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:20 am

Hi together,
I would expect that the high amount of IR in halogen light leads to the drying effect. But UV is bad for the specimens too, and of cause for the operator's eyes.
When using filter material I would be very careful: A normal transmission filter works by absorbing everything in the blocked light range. This leads to build up of heat and it can also lead to a consumation of the filter. So if I would put a piece of UV blocking acrylic that was meant for museum display cases in front of a mercury lamp it is the question whether it will first melt or whether the filter effect breaks down. In arc lamp projection microscopes they used brown filters of 20-30mm thickness massiv glass for lower powers. This gave a dim image of 1,5m diagonal in a semi darkened room. For higher powers rectangular bottles filled with iron oxide stained water were used.

Bob

Hobbyst46
Posts: 2157
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: minimizing harm

#60 Post by Hobbyst46 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:17 am

MicroBob wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 7:20 am
When using filter material I would be very careful: A normal transmission filter works by absorbing everything in the blocked light range. This leads to build up of heat and it can also lead to a consumation of the filter.
According to my experience, indeed, a Schott KG3 or KG5 IR-blocking filter, thickness 5mm, can block the IR from a 100W XBO high-pressure mercury lamp for months, then suddenly crack. Could be the same with 100W halogen.
The classical IR-stopping device was a flow cell filled with copper sulfate solution; this chemical absorbs IR and is chemically stable. But it is inconvenient, one needs a noisy circulation pump, leaks can develop etc.

Here are two options for an accurate and unbiased comparison of heating output from two illuminators (say, halogen vs LED):
The microscope needs to be in a stable and constant ambient temperature.
1. Get an electronic thermometer equipped with a microsensor. There are <0.1mm diameter**, fast thermocouple sensors. Attach the tip to a slide and actually measure the temperature of the slide surface over time. Give it 15-20 minutes at least. Turn on the illuminator and continue to monitor.
2. A similar process, using a portable infrared thermometer.
IMO method 2 is less accurate than method 1 but is less expensive.

Probably, such tests for halogen lamps are known and data are available somewhere, but the heating effectes could vary from one microscope to another.
I think that critters react to heat as well as light, and might be sensitive to the spectrum of illumination. Halogen differs from LED in several aspects, not just the induced heat.

Edit: a novel method could be based on a heat-sensitive optical coatings for glass slides, hot from the bakery:
https://microscopy-analysis.com/editori ... hermometer

** Edit: just remembered the brand name - Physitemp (NJ, USA). Their sensors can detect the temperature of insect limbs and other tiny environments. Perhaps Omega makes them too. Again, all at a cost.
Last edited by Hobbyst46 on Sat Oct 05, 2019 9:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
Zeiss Standard GFL+Canon EOS-M10, Olympus VMZ stereo

Post Reply