Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#51

Post by therealdrag0 »

nkrisc wrote: post #40
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. People ran barefoot, then with a thin piece of leather strapped to their feet for hundreds of thousands of years. All this arch and ankle support of the last few decades has done nothing except cause injuries.

And people also only lived to be 40 (if they were lucky) for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because ancient people did something doesn't somehow make it better for that reason alone.

<40 is “life expectancy AT BIRTH”, that is not the adult life expectancy which is much higher.

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#52

Post by Scoundreller »

TheGallopedHigh wrote: post #41
HeWhoLurksLate wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put running insoles in a pair of really cheap steel-toes that I have to wear at work, and it made all the difference in how my legs and feet felt at the end of a shift.

Similar to an old trick for gastro workers. Take two pairs to work and swap them half way. Your feet will feel a lot better at the end of the day.

Gastro workers = restaurant staff?

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#54

Post by pbhjpbhj »

andybak wrote: post #6

I'm 49 and I'm sure I remember there still being machines in stores when I was 7 or 8. Is that possible? I don't recall them actually in use - but they were visibly present. (I'm in the UK) EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-fitting_fluoroscope#Regul... Looks possible.

I wonder if you and/or others might be confusing the x-ray machines with the mechanical foot measuring machines.

I'm middle aged and remember Clarks (probably in Sheffield, UK) having what looked like a crushing machine with steel plates that closed - very gently - on to the feet and gave a read out of size and width. (See image at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32738088#_=_ under "Appropriate measures", left hand machine seems familiar to me).

I remember it being a very strange but pleasant experience and wonder now if it wasn't my first ASMR.

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#55

Post by bluGill »

andychase wrote: post #46
benesch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve never understood the argument that floors and pavement are the cause of modern foot problems due to their hardness. It just doesn’t add up. Sure, running barefoot through a well-maintained soccer field is going to be lower impact than running on pavement. But ancient humans didn’t evolve on soccer fields. If you ever try running through unmaintained land barefoot, it’s terrible on your feet! Uneven terrain, bran…

I disagree with the first part, I have walked a bit barefoot and dirt/leaves is pretty soft. I imagine early humans looked where they were stepping. That said, shoes have been found to go back 40,000 years at least

Nobody sane will run on leaves. You run on surfaces that don't hide sharp sticks. Deer in the wiled run on deer trails - well worn paths of hard packed dirt. They walk elsewhere. (if chased they will run to the trails, which are close enough that the risk of running on something not safe is low)

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#56

Post by rootusrootus »

benesch wrote: post #42
rootusrootus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had foot problems for a while, and I went to a podiatrist who suggested I wear crocs. Said that shoes were a modern creation and that our feet weren't designed to need them. It was an unmitigated disaster. So I went to a different podiatrist. She said "let me guess, you went to Dr. So-and-so?" and I replied yes, she said "Yeah, I don't agree with him. Shoes are modern, but so are floors." My feet are much happie…

I’ve never understood the argument that floors and pavement are the cause of modern foot problems due to their hardness. It just doesn’t add up. Sure, running barefoot through a well-maintained soccer field is going to be lower impact than running on pavement. But ancient humans didn’t evolve on soccer fields. If you ever try running through unmaintained land barefoot, it’s terrible on your feet! Uneven terrain, bran…

> due to their hardness

My understanding (IANAP) is that the problem is not the hard part, it's the flat part.

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#58

Post by mordechai9000 »

mrfusion wrote: post #19

Say, why can’t we recreate this with ultrasound? Actually that seems like a good idea. Should I patent it?

I think you could build a 3d model with photogrammetry. There's not that much soft tissue and it's not like you're going to ignore it, anyway. Retool the manufacturing so custom shoes roll off the line with modern materials and design.

I'd pay a premium for hiking boots custom made for my feet, and I bet a lot of other people would, too. Or any athletic footwear. People are already paying whatever they can afford.

Of course you can get custom hiking boots handmade, but when I looked into it, the materials and design were ancient and the resulting boots were ridiculously heavy.

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#59

Post by nkrisc »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #51
nkrisc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And people also only lived to be 40 (if they were lucky) for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because ancient people did something doesn't somehow make it better for that reason alone.

<40 is “life expectancy AT BIRTH”, that is not the adult life expectancy which is much higher.

Exact value is irrelevant considering I'm talking about a span of hundreds of thousands of years across every human population alive during that time. The point is, and I feel confident saying it, that current life expectancy (at any stage) is higher now than at nearly any time in the distant past.

Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store

#60

Post by copperx »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #28
3JPLW wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially given this: > That 1948 study of 43 machines in Detroit showed ranges from 16 to 75 roentgens per minute. In 1946, the American Standards Association had issued a safety code for industrial use of X-rays, limiting exposure to 0.1 R per day. I'd be curious how much a typical modern dental x-ray emits, but we no longer measure in roentgens these days as we have better measures of the actual dose (sieverts).

Modern dental x-rays are basically negligible for most patients, although not for dentists who do them daily, even though they're well away from the beam - which is why they have to hide when they take them. Less negligible are CT scans, which can expose you to multiples of the average annual background dose in a few minutes. That's still relatively low level exposure. But there isn't really a safe minimum exposure l…

Aren't CT scans equivalent to about 3,000 chest X-Rays? It sounds pretty bad if you're young.
Post reply on HN