4 ms·

That is a fascinating story. Historically there were actually "live" x-ray machines, where you could have seen yourself wiggling your toes. They aren't used n

by ajb 2y ago

That is a fascinating story. Historically there were actually "live" x-ray machines, where you could have seen yourself wiggling your toes. They aren't used now due to the horrific exposure to x-rays, but before that was understood to be bad they were used in shoe shops (!). I don't know that they were ever used in hospitals though https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope

dredmorbius 2y ago
And of course the most harmed by fluoroscopes weren't the customers (bad enough) but the sales staff, who had multiple daily exposures day after week after month after year. Checking your Wikipedia link: Yikes! These were used into the 1970s. And of course industry denialism of any possible harm the devices might cause.... SMFH
- mh- 2y ago
  1981 in West Virginia according to some sources. https://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm https://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    My head can only shake so much.... At least they had the good sense to give it up when notified.
smeej 2y ago
I had a motion x-ray as recently as 2020. I don't know enough about the technology to know why this was different, but I have a copy of the video. Edit: This is the type of machine it was: https://www.dmxworks.com/ https://www.dmxworks.com/
- ajb 2y ago
  That's cool. I wonder how they reduce the dose enough that it's safe. Presumably they were quite careful about how long the exposure was?
  - smeej 2y ago
    It took several minutes and a couple tries to get the exposure right on certain shots. They didn't seem overly concerned about the exposure. The person operating the machine didn't seem at all worried about it, so I didn't worry either. Can't rule out that I should have!
    - ajb 2y ago
      These days the machine itself should also warn if it's on too long, so perhaps the operator was relying on that. These days even UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much. Well, it does in the UK at least.
      - knodi123 2y ago
        > UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much Which also takes into account how much time you spend outside during daylight hours, right?? That seems like such a large confounding variable that it renders the hospital-side measurement kind of pointless...
  - toast0 2y ago
    Digital x-ray sensors require a much smaller exposure than film, and I'd guess a lot smaller exposure than a shoe sizer machine, too. For multiple exposures in motion, it will add up, but assuming there's a reasonable diagnostic benefit and the total exposure isn't too long, and the staff is well protected, it's a reasonable risk.
eternauta3k 2y ago
Also used for medical research (e.g. back injury research)

by ajb 2y ago

dredmorbius 2y ago

And of course the most harmed by fluoroscopes weren't the customers (bad enough) but the sales staff, who had multiple daily exposures day after week after month after year. Checking your Wikipedia link: Yikes! These were used into the 1970s. And of course industry denialism of any possible harm the devices might cause.... SMFH

mh- 2y ago
1981 in West Virginia according to some sources. https://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm https://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  My head can only shake so much.... At least they had the good sense to give it up when notified.

smeej 2y ago

I had a motion x-ray as recently as 2020. I don't know enough about the technology to know why this was different, but I have a copy of the video. Edit: This is the type of machine it was: https://www.dmxworks.com/ https://www.dmxworks.com/

ajb 2y ago
That's cool. I wonder how they reduce the dose enough that it's safe. Presumably they were quite careful about how long the exposure was?
- smeej 2y ago
  It took several minutes and a couple tries to get the exposure right on certain shots. They didn't seem overly concerned about the exposure. The person operating the machine didn't seem at all worried about it, so I didn't worry either. Can't rule out that I should have!
  - ajb 2y ago
    These days the machine itself should also warn if it's on too long, so perhaps the operator was relying on that. These days even UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much. Well, it does in the UK at least.
    - knodi123 2y ago
      > UV treatment gets added to your record so that further treatments don't accumulate too much Which also takes into account how much time you spend outside during daylight hours, right?? That seems like such a large confounding variable that it renders the hospital-side measurement kind of pointless...
- toast0 2y ago
  Digital x-ray sensors require a much smaller exposure than film, and I'd guess a lot smaller exposure than a shoe sizer machine, too. For multiple exposures in motion, it will add up, but assuming there's a reasonable diagnostic benefit and the total exposure isn't too long, and the staff is well protected, it's a reasonable risk.

eternauta3k 2y ago

Also used for medical research (e.g. back injury research)