3 ms·

I agree with you. But the safety concerns are real. It's his life to risk, but during Edison's days, one of his assistants lost everything to x-ray damage. His

I agree with you. But the safety concerns are real. It's his life to risk, but during Edison's days, one of his assistants lost everything to x-ray damage. His body became totally deformed. Oddly, this Daily Mail article is somehow near the top of the results. But reading over it, it seems pretty accurate from what I remember. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7180945/X-rays-ravaged-Thomas-Edisons-assistants-hands-killed-him.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7180945/X-rays-ra... So it's not like the safety concerns are entirely off-base. But still, I agree that it's his life to risk.

megous 5y ago
Just one exposure of the assistant is many orders of magnitude more exposure than this guy had for the entire experiment. It's not really comparable.
swores 5y ago
Might I suggest that even on occasions when the Daily Mail (/ Mail Online) has accurate content, they still don't deserve page views or advert impressions and that when not too hard other links would be better. I'm not sure how the exact content stacks up, but this Smithsonian Mag link was high in my search results https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-dally-the-man-who-gave-thomas-edison-x-ray-vision-123713565/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-dally-the-ma... Anyway, thanks for the story that I hadn't heard before!
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  That's an interesting suggestion. May I ask why? I really don't know anything about it. The hesitation I had with sharing a daily mail link was "Is it accurate?" rather than whether they deserve impressions. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be a bad idea to support them.
  - ftyers 5y ago
    They're widely (although not universally) considered to be irredeemable in England after an article they published in 1934 entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".
  - swores 5y ago
    Wikipedia is probably a good place to learn a handful of examples and go further down the rabbit hole from there if interested, starting with these sections: 7 Libel lawsuits 7.1 Successful lawsuits against the Mail 7.2 Unsuccessful lawsuits 7.3 Legal action by the Daily Mail 8 Criticism 8.1 Racism accusations 8.2 Homophobia accusations 8.3 Sexism accusations 8.4 Paying for footage under investigation 8.5 Byline removal 8.6 Sensationalism 8.7 Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail Although of course the wikipedia page just has a small number of examples, I'd say that the first words of those 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6 subheaders above, and lack of 8.7, do a decent job of surmising the Daily Mail.
RandallBrown 5y ago
Safety concerns are real and I believe William Osman manages them pretty well. Here's a "reacts" video where a radiologist agrees he's being pretty safe and what he's doing isn't that risky (assuming he knows what he's doing with high voltage.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJs598n3gE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJs598n3gE
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Thanks for this!

megous 5y ago

Just one exposure of the assistant is many orders of magnitude more exposure than this guy had for the entire experiment. It's not really comparable.

swores 5y ago

Might I suggest that even on occasions when the Daily Mail (/ Mail Online) has accurate content, they still don't deserve page views or advert impressions and that when not too hard other links would be better. I'm not sure how the exact content stacks up, but this Smithsonian Mag link was high in my search results https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-dally-the-man-who-gave-thomas-edison-x-ray-vision-123713565/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-dally-the-ma... Anyway, thanks for the story that I hadn't heard before!

sillysaurusx 5y ago
That's an interesting suggestion. May I ask why? I really don't know anything about it. The hesitation I had with sharing a daily mail link was "Is it accurate?" rather than whether they deserve impressions. It hadn't occurred to me that it might be a bad idea to support them.
- ftyers 5y ago
  They're widely (although not universally) considered to be irredeemable in England after an article they published in 1934 entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts".
- swores 5y ago
  Wikipedia is probably a good place to learn a handful of examples and go further down the rabbit hole from there if interested, starting with these sections: 7 Libel lawsuits 7.1 Successful lawsuits against the Mail 7.2 Unsuccessful lawsuits 7.3 Legal action by the Daily Mail 8 Criticism 8.1 Racism accusations 8.2 Homophobia accusations 8.3 Sexism accusations 8.4 Paying for footage under investigation 8.5 Byline removal 8.6 Sensationalism 8.7 Reliability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail Although of course the wikipedia page just has a small number of examples, I'd say that the first words of those 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.6 subheaders above, and lack of 8.7, do a decent job of surmising the Daily Mail.

RandallBrown 5y ago

Safety concerns are real and I believe William Osman manages them pretty well. Here's a "reacts" video where a radiologist agrees he's being pretty safe and what he's doing isn't that risky (assuming he knows what he's doing with high voltage.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJs598n3gE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJs598n3gE

sillysaurusx 5y ago
Thanks for this!