My logophile friend asked that I post this as he wanted your responses:

"Maybe your members would enjoy discussing what seems to me a monumental goof on the part of Lienhard. Go to Lienhard, scroll down to the picture alleged to have been taken by radiation. But, the truly remarkable item in this domestic magazine is one on radiation. Two photos, one of a building and one of a flame, have both been taken through an opaque wall using some form of radiation -- probably akin to X-rays. The writer pieces together what various scientists have been saying to explain radiation.

I don't believe a camera lens can focus radiation outside the visual range. And if the radiation could go through an opaque wall, it could go through a whole camera, including film, and fog the bejesus out of it. I really think Lienhard goofed on this one. He had a senile moment worse than any of mine so far. I think it is a howler, and I'll bet your members will too. Please use it and let me know what your members think."

Any comments?

Quote, "...I don't believe a camera lens can focus radiation outside the visual range..."

Actually a glass lens can focus radiation well outside the visual spectrum, although I don't know the extremes. I believe X Rays are beyond these extremes.

However, both ultra-violet and infra-red can be focussed, that's how we have infra-red cameras (like the one in Chicago's museum of science and technology). I would imagine the pictures on this site would have been taken using infra-red - although there's not really enough data given to be sure.

And although a normal lens can't focus X Rays and radiation such as that from radium (mentioned in the article) such rays can be captured on normal photographic film and, even unfocussed, produce an image of sorts.