81–90 of 126 posts
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.
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…
Next time you need an X-ray ask the doctor why that costs more than a pair of shoes. I mean they used to include one free with a pair.
The views taken are done to show particular things and the person doing it needs training. Then the reporting needs paying for, and radiologists aren’t cheap. The images and paperwork (referral, report, images, billing and demographics) need storing and need to have a system for finding them again.
The department needs things for cleaning your blood off the floor, handling you trying to die while on site and generally working safely.
And lastly, everyone clips the ticket, insurance primarily.
But I mostly like your take, it’s great.
Tangent. People are still getting conned when it comes to shoes. Custom designed soles, with padding in the "right" places based on the shape of your foot, in order to "absorb impact" or "correct overpronation". Which is nonsense and unnecessary unless you have foot deformities. Your foot is perfectly capable of absorbing impact and whatnot. This is all marketing aimed at gullible new runners who want to go from couc…
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.
What about all the concrete and asphalt we run on now? Doesn't that make a difference?
"When mm waves were used at the airport (2044)"
mm waves are lower energy than visible light, which is far lower energy than x-rays. Or perhaps you weren't implying that mm waves are ionizing and cause cancer?
It is quite plausible that we will discover new things that are dangerous in the future (to varying degrees), as we once did with x-rays.
As a side note, many of his fellow radiologists lost fingers because they didn't follow procedures using shields and lead gloves.
Next time you need an X-ray ask the doctor why that costs more than a pair of shoes. I mean they used to include one free with a pair.
Considering the $2k cost and roughly 5 million cars sold each year, the safety measures cost $10 billion, for an ROI of up to $30 billion/year.
There was an unfortunate uptick as smart phones gained popularity, though it seems like public awareness campaigns and distracted driving laws may have helped that.
Car safety is a pretty good example of how both government regulation and the free market can work together to achieve positive results. (marketing based on safety features allowed companies to compete on something other than price).
That's not an endorsement to embrace all government regulation, just an example of how it isn't all meaningless bureaucracy.
[0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
A related phenomenon was x-ray salons, "the most scientific way to remove hair." Hundreds of these cropped up in the early 20th century, originally growing out of their use in the medical profession. Most targeted working class, immigrant women to the US. They were eventually banned but persisted underground for quite some time. There's a good history of them in Plucked: A History of Hair Removal. https://books.googl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one expected him to be one at the time, we didn't know the dangers. It's like asking why removing Asbestos costs so much when my grandfather put this building together earning a nickel a day.
I'm not talking about expectations. I am talking about the price of medical imaging, not the price of the analysis of medical imaging. It is my impression that a clear distinction between these matters can and frequently is made.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/image/MzcwNzM3OQ.jpeg
Was cheaper than being imaged today with one of these:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Xr...
Because the first one was a hack put together before we knew how bad it was. The second one is a high quality unit, with high safety standards, and regulatory compliance. The first one has none of those features.
You may as well ask yourself why a 737 costs more than the Wright Flyer.
