Every time I read about such things I imagine what kind of things are we doing now that people 50-100 years from now will comment and laugh about.
When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
121–126 of 126 posts
Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Atomic bombs, yes. World wars... I guess you could make that argument, but it's a stretch. There were basically world wars in antiquity. Atomic bombs also pretty much put an end to world wars.
> There were basically world wars in antiquity World War I saw the advent of chemical warfare with mustard gas. World War II saw European cities razed by carpet-bombing, even leaving atoms aside.
World War I was significantly different from previous wars in many ways due to advances in science and technology.
One of the earliest inventions that completely changed warfare at the start of World War I was the machine gun, which saw its first large-scale use in the 1914 German campaign against Belgian forts. Machine guns had been used in the Russo-Japanese War, but not to this extent and not with such terrible efficiency. Dan Carlin covers this topic in great detail in his fascinating 23h+ podcast series "Blueprint for Armageddon".
Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cancer via ionization is not the only damage that can be imparted on to human cells. 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.
Yeah, but we knew X-Rays were dangerous even then. We just thought it was ok in small doses (scientists were regularly burning themselves with X-Rays in the 19th century even). Correct me if I’m wrong, but mainstream science doesn’t really follow the same pattern of “bad for you but ok on small doses” (historically the most dangerous viewpoint to have) for mm-waves.
You can burn yourself with a large dose of mm waves. Microwaves have shielding on the window, and cell sites have minimum safe distance for humans..
"OK in small doses" is pretty much word for word[1][2][3] the viewpoint (that you call "the most dangerous viewpoint") offered for both mm waves and the old backscatter x-rays, which are still in use on mobile trucks and in prisons.
[1]"The radiation exposure is extremely small" https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/are-f...
[2]"the energy emitted by millimeter wave technology is 1,000 times less than the international limits and guidelines." https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2017/06/08/tsa-compl...
[3]"negligible individual dose" https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/is-that-ai...
Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
#124Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but we knew X-Rays were dangerous even then. We just thought it was ok in small doses (scientists were regularly burning themselves with X-Rays in the 19th century even). Correct me if I’m wrong, but mainstream science doesn’t really follow the same pattern of “bad for you but ok on small doses” (historically the most dangerous viewpoint to have) for mm-waves.
You can burn yourself with a large dose of mm waves. Microwaves have shielding on the window, and cell sites have minimum safe distance for humans.. "OK in small doses" is pretty much word for word[1][2][3] the viewpoint (that you call "the most dangerous viewpoint") offered for both mm waves and the old backscatter x-rays, which are still in use on mobile trucks and in prisons. [1]"The radiation exposure is extremel…
Wait wait wait wait.
First - Yes backscatter x-Rays are bad - we agree on that. Don't confuse those with mm-waves. My parent comment is literally about how X-Rays are bad, so no conflict there.
Second - High Energy mm-waves are bad for health (in the same way extremely bight light can be bad for your eyes). HOWEVER, as far as I can tell, none of those sources say prolonged exposure to low energy mm waves (like the kind in scanners) is bad. THAT's a big difference. Prolonged exposure to low-level X-rays is very bad. The same is not true for mm-waves (again, unless you have a source that says that).
Re: When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but we knew X-Rays were dangerous even then. We just thought it was ok in small doses (scientists were regularly burning themselves with X-Rays in the 19th century even). Correct me if I’m wrong, but mainstream science doesn’t really follow the same pattern of “bad for you but ok on small doses” (historically the most dangerous viewpoint to have) for mm-waves.
Well, you could definitely burn yourself with a powerful mm wave generator; but I'm not sure if that really says anything about safety.
Sure, it's not a perfect metaphor since you can burn yourself with high-energy light too.
My point is more that it's a urban myth that we thought X-Rays were harmless in the 50's. We just had a bad understanding of the risk vectors & built a bad risk model.