My mother worked in a hospital X-Ray Department in the early 1950's. 12 years later, she had her first cancer removed. She developed at least 4 completely different kinds of cancer over the next 50 years. All of her colleagues from that Department developed cancers.
@@RWBHere intereating, as I was under the impression that the hazards of radiation were well known by the 50s such that we were already using lead to block them by then.
X-Ray soap?!? Well, if every thing is marketed with "quantum" these days, I want some quantum soap. I can be clean and dirty at the same time... until my wife observes me and collapses my cleanliness wave function.
My favourite is that as an ICU nurse, we had several x-rays done every day in the unit. To warn us, the technicians always called out “exposing “ when they were ready to shoot. That always amused me and I sometimes teased them, saying “promises, promises!”
I am here to write this because of X Rays. My mother was the receptionist in the office of the first doctor in Memphis, Tennessee to have an X Ray Machine. My dad was structural engineer. He met my mom at that office when he went there to design the floor referment necessary because of the weight of the lead shielding.
The story about haphazardly using x-ray for everything, before finding out if it's safe or not, is basically the same story for Radium. It was in everything like cosmetics, toothpaste and food. I am happy that i live in a time with comparatively strict safety regulations
Such a nice and entertaining Saturday report! I was at Röntgen´s house-of-birth in the town of Remscheid, Western Germany, which is a museum today. It´s astonishing how primitive the scientific equipment you can view there, was made at those days. Sabine, if your list allows, perhaps you can do a similar report about Ettore Majorana one day?
@beingsentient In some languages, Dutch, German, Scandinavians and Japanese they're indeed named like the discoverer. But I think Röntgen himself called them X-Strahlen.
I do wonder one thing though: is this really a cautionary tale (I'm talking before the understanding of the ills of xrays)? Yes, many people became irrecoverably sick or died from the x-rays machines, but many more so were likely saved by the proper diagnostics resulting from the x-ray machine. Had the x-ray been banned until properly studied, these lives also need to be accounted for. And if it were truly banned, it would have likely taken much longer to figure out these issues, by nature of less people involved with it
Between the discovery of radiation and discovery of its harmfulness, they were marketing a lot of wares as radioactive (radioactive mineral water, radioactive cosmetics), in positive sense. It was thought to have wonderful properties, for example healing wounds or promoting youthfulness. X-Ray labels were a subset of this “radio-enthusiasm” of the 1900s, 10s, 20s and 30s… Some cases continued until mid 50s, though… 💀
They still sell stuff with radioactive material in them, selling them as health thingies without mentioning the radioactive part.. See for example bigclive's "Amazon fake 5G safety stickers hazard" or The Thought Emporium's "Negative Ion/Anti-5g Products Are Actually RADIOACTIVE".
It's a nice example of how "playing around with stuff" is really the ONLY way to make new discoveries. When you're playing with something you are letting that something speak for itself.
The world changed in the 1890s. Two amazing "lucky donkeys" changed the world forever. The discovery of x-rays led Becherel to think he could activate his phosphors using UV from the sun and maybe emit x-rays, as phosphors glowed just like the lenard tube. Luckily just like the chance discovery of x-rays, Becherel used one of his phosphorescent Uranium minerals against a film plate to take a shadow radiograph just like x-rays. Suddenly it was realized certain rocks and chemicals gave off strange rays and never stopped giving them off with no power applied....Nuclear radiation was discovered in 1896...Exactly 49 years later, the first atomic bomb was exploded! One lucky donkey led another lucky donkey a year apart to change the world forever.
Excellent as always. It made me want to learn more. Was the Hertz that Wilhelm Röntgen worked with the same Hertz of frequency? The articles focused more on Röntgen so it was hard to tell. Still, if true the meeting of such great minds during that period is wondrous and not an accident. Thank you, Sabine!
On the topic of reducing exposures in medical x-ray imaging: beside the factors you mentioned, another big one was the introduction, ca 1980, of rare-earth screens, which convert the x-rays into visible light, which more efficiently exposes photographic plates, thus further reducing the x-ray intensity needed to get a usable image. Thanks for another top-notch video! Fred PS. "laboratory" is misspelled, "labatory" twice, early in the video.
I was a young radiographer having qualified in 1980. We experimented with single screen rare earth. That was back in the days when non screen films were still being used for high detail extremity work. I retired 6 years ago and now spend some time each week looking at tutor radiographer channels from the Indian subcontinent where the worst radiography in the world is performed. Incomplete or incorrect series. Rotation of fractures of the femur and humerus. Crazy low kV. Most of all, it is the total lack of collimation. Here is a current example of a scaphoid series including the elbow joint. ruclips.net/video/5HQCFxo1jck/видео.htmlsi=slwwF-6msMGEAic1 and a response video I made how to perform a baby chest xray. ruclips.net/video/pMWYSfWRDek/видео.htmlsi=6c7Jp8UbR4jngVHK. You are obviously in the xray profession. Will you pass my test on xray beam geometry that 75% of qualified radiographers fail yet only 5% of radiologists? ruclips.net/video/mZPD_gLs5Dw/видео.htmlsi=e5HMqOBuOfOlomlu Please look at my channel for lowest dose radiography of the spine
Sabine, I have learned more about science from you than anyone in my entire life. Thank you for the time you take making these videos that dummies like me can understand.
Shielding and _filtering_ of the x-rays are both of importance in lowering the dose. Bremstrahlung has a low energy tail that only deposits energy in the patient. Filtering these energies greatly enhances safety while not affecting diagnostic accuracy.
5:34 Indeed, I did, at the Clarke's shoe shop in the 1960s. Considering that they didn't switch the machine on for me to stick my feet in I can only assume that everything apart from the slot that you put your feet in was well shielded, that or everyone in its immedaite vicinity was being constantly bombarded with the radiation... I am still here at age 69, so the occasional foot X ray didn't cause any lasting damage!
@@ThatOpalGuy You are probably correct; when at fairs and sales I live in hope of seeing one for sale just to find out. In all likelihood it would have had the tube removed to make it fit to sell so I will probably never know. The only two I ever saw and used were installed near the door to the shop, so you would get a dose even if you were just asking for directions.
My mom would take me and my three younger brothers to Sears department store to shop for clothes and shoes at the start of the new school year. While waiting we would amuse ourselves by sticking our feet into the machine and watching our feet as we wriggled our toes.
"Our" bones? With who specifically do you share bones?is whoever that is asinine enough to find himself or herself funny and share you distaste for the letter G, and which song do you sin, when in the mood for a sinson?
I can only imagine how startling that would be! It's even startling when you have an idea of what to expect. (A much younger me may, or may not, have made an x-ray machine decades ago, inspired by fellow engineer Clair L Stong.)
Yes, good old Röntgen! Same as Marie Curie and many others, who discovered something completely new and didn't think of potential consequences. But how could they, respective science was still developing. However, I think there is still a lot left to discover today. It's just that it isn't so easy to do any longer. But we (i.e., the scientists and people in charge) should have learned considering potential consequences. And of course that's what all we are doing, right? ...right!?
My father was a physics teacher and I remember him showing us the x-ray tube in action, looking at his hands and so on many times. That shoe-X-ray box was also a fun thing for me to look at at length. Think he eventually got scared because he warned me later about using a microwave oven :)
A CT scan (equivalently CAT scan, calcium score) exposes you to between 6 months and several years of background radiation. A single CT scan increases your risk of cancer by 15 to 50 times (known as a odds ratio, based on a large study of over 100 million people). For comparison, if you have a common heart arrhythmia called atrial fibrillation, they treat it as if you have an extremely elevated risk of having a stroke because it is 5 times that of a normal person - notice odds ratio of just 5 rather than 15 or more. A CT scan is very useful and important in some cases, like to check for bleeding in your brain that could kill you if not detected, but avoid CT scans if not necessary. Other x-rays like dental, bones, chest and so on are much much safer as Sabine assures us. And note that MRIs do not use radiation at all, they use magnetism that is very safe.
Strictly speaking, MRIs do use radiation. However, the electromagnetic radiation used is at radio frequencies, which is harmless. (People who claim to be "radiosensitive" and mobile phone mast opponents may disagree, but the science is against them.)
@@robertfitzjohn4755 True. I think the distinction is the term "ionizing radiation" which means (like X-rays and gamma rays and nuclear radiation), radiation that is energetic enough to alter molecules in your body. I suppose there are people who fear flashlights and radios, but I think that's irrational and outside of scientific evidence. MRIs and ultrasound are by far the safest imaging technologies. If in doubt people should read more about it. There are a lot of resources and studies. They will also learn that risks from radiation are cumulative, so the more exposure the more risk.
A CT scan can be done on an extremity like a hand or knee. That will give a patient about 1/100th the body dose as a chest/ abdomen/pelvis contrast series. One is a single scan, the other is most of the body done 3 times. Comparing radiation doses is extremely difficult with plain radiography. A chest xray is not the same as a finger xray in body exposed, scatter produced and sensitivity of the organs like sternum and thyroid.
Nice! I have had several and dozens of normal x-rays too, quite a few on my head. And all of them were not needed other than ruling out other issues. I've just had bad luck with health and 90% of my issues were caused by medicine in general in an ironic twist which always manifests in a serious symptoms that mimic other dangerous conditions but end up being no cause found, hence needing CT, x-ray and MRI among others.
Loved the History lesson, Dr.! The excitement of a scientist finding a totally unexpected phenomen, the experiments, to see how it may have constructed the hypothesis... More of this, please!
As a child in the mid '50's I remember visiting the shoe department in Alexander's in the Bronx which had a shoe & foot x-ray machine on the floor. I tried, but fortunately it was no longer operational. Unfortunately the words on Roentgen's house, "die nach ihm bennaten strahlen" [the rays which bare his name] is lost on most Americans; he would have had to change his name to "Dr. X" if he wanted that recognition in this country.
I remember the X-Ray room at the school dentist. Sitting in that chair with the led blankets covering all but my face, alone in near darkness, waiting for the loud hum, twice, and then waiting in fear for what Dr Holte might do to me😭 Ah, childhood trauma, brings a warm fuzzy feeling to my tummy🤪
Heh... I remember visiting a friend in Russia, and we took her cat to a vet to treat a hurt paw. The vet asked me: "Please hold the cat over that plate while I stand behind this lead plate and operate the X-ray". The machine was huge and noisy as heck. Yeah that made me feel loads better... At least the cat recovered and lived for a good 20 years...
I am old enough to remember that during the 1950s shoe stores used to have X-ray machines into which you inserted your shod feet to see how well the new shoes that you were trying on were fitting.
Sabine puts out a video and I instantly feel irradiated with knowledge. Thanks for helping me to see through things better ❤ hair is falling out though 😅
I'm in the Imaging field and find this story fascinating. I'm grateful to live at this time where we have much of the basic science figured out, yet many advances in science and medicine are yet to come. Even in physics.😊
The same thing happened with radioactivity. Product like radium chocolate and even radium toothpaste and radioactive socks were promoted as some kind of miracle health products. At the same time the women painting watches with radium paint were loosing their teeth and getting cancer from working with the radium paint.
I saw one of the x-ray shoe fitting machines (in a non-working condition) at the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices in Minneapolis, MN 20 years ago. I believe that it was transferred to the collections of Museum of Science in that city when the curator, a gentleman named Bob McCoy, passed.
Ah Twitter-Rays. Reminds me of the popular superhero group Twitter-Men composed mostly of angsty, mutant teenagers who spend their time fighting each other as much as they do with villains. Kind of like Twitter in real life, actually.
You know Sabine, people of all times have made the same argument that it's harder to discover new stuff now because so much has already been discovered. Probably not true in terms of sheer quantity, but perhaps new easy stuff to discover has dwindled.
There's more to discover today than back then in the late 19th century because the more we know the more we realize we don't know. Also because our present day knowledge is more profound and it lets us view the world around us in more detail and more depth. Back then they didn't even know what the Galaxy was, today we are probing the Universe back to the birth of the CMB, which they didn't know about either, and looking into the depths of black holes.
Safety point - don't forget the operators Sabine. Radiographers / Radiologic Technologists have a large role including batting away unhelpful, non-indicated examination requests (no, they're not orders as in being compelled, despite what's said).
You must be a radiographer. So am I. My entire professional life for 30 years was trying to teach radiographers to give up on centring point and use collimation based positioning. This was hampered by very few radiographers understanding the geometry of the xray beam. Pushing the tube angulation button and angling the tube doesn't change the position of the tube focus so changing the centring point through angulation will only change collimation. Lack of this knowledge meant almost all of the Townes projections of the skull included a totally pointless and dangerous dose to the face and neck and sometimes, chest. Take a look at the way Indian radiographers do that projection. Take the test yourself and don't be surprised if you fail but let that motivate you to ensuring the next generation doesn't make the same mistake ruclips.net/video/mZPD_gLs5Dw/видео.htmlsi=e5HMqOBuOfOlomlu Take a look at my channel to see how I produce the lowest possible dose for the plain radiography of the spine.
There were many products that promised ''Health'' benefits. One was a table top water dispenser, similar to ones today that use replacable filters, except these water dispensers radiated the water to both ''clean'' it and make it energetic...
Very interesting video about x-rays. 👌👍👍 I remember as a child being in the shoe department with my Mother. There was a big wooden box type of platform on which you would stand and at the bottom of the platform there was a hole where you would put your feet. At the top of this device was a viewing screen. When you looked through the viewing screen you could see the bones in your feet moving in real time. Even as a child, I thought it was some sort of joke thing to sell shoes. As I got older and found out it was an X-ray machine I was horrified. I mean, come on an X-ray machine in a shoe shop? ☠ One thing I was amazed at was the fact that you could see your toes and other bones of your feet moving in real time. I only remember because it was so strange. I wonder how much damage was done to children's feet with those shoe machines. 😳
The fact he didn't patent the tech so it could proliferate the benefits is inspiring. Sadly, the comparison to AI ends up sad for somewhat equal and opposite reasons (not owning the training data; rapid release for profit and more training data), and the dangers are alarmingly high. Oops, I meant considerably high. Don't want to be labeled an alarmist. Those dangers are also widely distributed, making them harder to do anything about. At least we are adapting quickly in this new age of urgency, noise, and media blame laundering. I'm sure AI won't contribute to our conundrum at all. AI generated summary: AI is modern and cool, just like X-Rays.
Instead of not patenting the tech, perhaps it would be better to patent and license it, and either license it only to corporations that won't price-gouge or establish a philanthropic foundation to distribute the inventor's share of the profits.
Regards the ad for Brilliant - that's what your channel is! I love the regular content, always interesting, always very well presented with a nice slice of humour!
I read a lot of articles on Röntgen's discovery. Nowhere the voltage used is indicated. It takes voltages >> 5 kV for X ray production, and these voltages need a quite good vacuum within the tube. So I guess it was a specialized and well equipped lab.
Early xray machinery used a 'spark gap' technique for determining kV. A massive spark jumped a gap and energised the tube which must have been terrifying. I worked with old radiographers in the late 70s who had experience with these machines. I also worked with direct screening which involved a pitch dark room except for illumination by a red light. That was before the image intensifier.
Ebenezer McBurney Byers (April 12, 1880 - March 31, 1932) was an American socialite, sportsman, and industrialist. He won the 1906 U.S. Amateur in golf. He died from multiple radiation-induced cancers after consuming Radithor, a patent medicine made from radium dissolved in water.
Is the story of the key image apocryphal? As a long time ago student teacher it amazed me how teachers would sit a small group of kids dangerously close to a TV set. It is doubtful but unlikely the X-ray dose was safe. My cautions were always ignored. Then there was the large white goods store where the salesman had twenty or so TV sets, all blaring out rays and arranged in a semi-circle with an approximate 'focal point'. I don't need to point out where 'everyone' stood. Not good for the nerves. We all make mistakes; the error is in not listening. Lastly, you mentioned the lure of earlier times; the instant cure for such wishing is to imagine a trip to the dentist - 'AAAAHHHHHH!' (pronounced as on Bugs Bunny). As ever, enjoyed your presentation.
@SabineHossenfelder - According to a biography of Nikola Tesla I once read, Tesla had discovered these same spooky rays several years earlier, without using vacuum tubes, because his voltages were high enough to produce strong ionization of air at normal pressure. But as the bio said, Tesla was not interested in pursuing this oddity, and passed all his research on it to Röntgen upon hearing of Röntgen's interest in the subject. _And btw Sabine, you really look good in those glasses._ :-)
Philip Lenard might have noticed them first but not bothered with it. The radiographers have these digital plates they put under the patient, it transmits back the image, no wires. I think that's cool.
Does anyone remember “X-ray specs”, a novelty pair of glasses (spectacles) that were advertised in comic books and magazines in the 1950’s & 60’s? They were supposed to let you “see through” objects like an X-ray machine. Then there was the punk group, “X-ray Specs” in the 1980’s. They were high energy.
I remember a shoe fitting machine back 70 years ago.i stood on a step while my mother and the salesman commented about the fit. I stood there several minutes while they decided if the shoe fit properly
Oh, I love that name. But I’m afraid Americans can’t handle more than 1 or 2 syllables. Maybe it’s too hard to say or takes too long to say or can’t be put in a rap song. Lol
I'm a 'Forty-niner and I've stuck my feet into that big wood console more than once., back in the day. Meanwhile, my Mom and the shoe salesman peered into the view ports while the salesman "diagnosed" the fit. What a show.
For me the most frustrating thing about society today whether it is in Europe or North America especially is that people think they are much smarter than they were in 1895...without actually being so. Whether it is AI or any of the new technologies being developed to fight the Climate Crisis, people need to do more than research something on Goodle to form an opinion on things that can alter peoples lives in a big way.
They manipulate much of the information.. I guarantee you can do a bunch of research on climate change and I'll do an old archives of government weather history and show the 1920s were much hotter than today. I can do research and find we used to have many more above 100f degree days worldwide. I can do research and find out over half of the wildlife and domestic cattle died from record hot temps and record drought in the 1950s in the lower USA. But the climate change activists will start their comparison with the 1970s, which was a time during record cold to the point all leading scientists agreed the world was cooling. I have noticed the official government weather archives are getting harder to find, wonder why?
@@Bryan-HensleyClimate Crisis (formerly called global warming and climate change) is about power and control. Just listed to Sabine's fellow German *Claus Schwab.* (Notice that Sabina never pokes fun at him!)
@@Bryan-Hensley *cringe* How ironic to post something like that under a comment bemoaning how many people fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You should seriously consider the probability of you being wrong due to misunderstanding complex stuff, before assuming that there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists.
I have followed climate change since 1985 and the predictions from then have come true. Remember that 4 times more climate change is occurring at the poles and most of the heating is occurring to the seas. You think we should bury our heads in the sand of ignorance and false hope@@Bryan-Hensley
great video! thanks. A little missing here is at least some minimal explanation why the X radiation went in all directions while the "cathode ray" was uni-directional?
My mother was born in 1915. Her mother died in 1923 of "Leukemia". There was a "radium" craze in the years before this happened, it was prescribed for colds and flu... There was a physician in the family. Both of my mother's parents eventually died of cancers. She was terrified of "cancer" but had no memory of radium treatments... She died 13 months short of her Century. Not from cancer. This was an interesting video. Thank you.
I remember a shoe store having one when I was very young. Anybody could walk up and look at the bones in their feet. I was at that machine every chance I got. Luckily, we lived out of town, so I still have feet. I think this was after these machines were supposed to have been banned, or at least had access restricted, but am no longer certain.
Reminds me of physics experimenting I did in high school, in 1965. I didn’t know it was that easy to create x-rays, neither did my physics teacher apparently. And now I have CML, a form of leukemia, whose one known cause is x radiation. I hope science fairs are more cautious these days.
@@Bryan-Hensley since we know exactly what frequency range xrays fall in, we can measure how much we're exposed xrays occurring from nature, or more precisely space. If we then expose xray imaging patients with doses similar to those they're exposed to each and every day for their whole lives, we can be sure we're not harming them too much. Of course, we're still increasing the chance patients get cancer a bit earlier they would otherwise. In almost every scenario, taking that chance does less harm to patients compared to not having those xray images taken, and therefore miss out on getting a faster and more accurate diagnosis. So yes, xrays do have a negative effect on the body. That's why doctors only use them when the alternative is even worse.
I´ll transition into a critique in a moment, so I'll cautiously start with my statements that: all science communication is good, valid and important - and Dr. Sabine is an Internet-ional treasure. That being said, as someone who merely (but copiously) consumes science communication, I feel more and more frustration with the mere phenomenology science communicators often present us with. A never-ending, bigger and bigger tsunami of´: here´s this new data/study/finding. Hardly ever do we get the chance to follow a trail of abstractions, observe overlaying principles, meanings, interconnectedness of knowledge... not only `Look at this new tree we found!' but also 'And this changes how we think about the woods, because... and, speaking of woods: ...' For example, a throwaway line Dr. Sabine makes towards the end of the video: "... (back then) there was so much more to discover." WAS THERE? I kind of want to challenge the validity of that statement. Was there MORE to discover? Or was it (in hindsight only) "easier"? Do we have a way of quantifying discoverable knowledge for such a comparison? (Obviously not, hello, unknown unknowns) But what a nice thing to dive into deeper, for example, and watch you think about. (Rather then a piece of well-known biography that can easily be read off a wikipedia page.)
Your caution about A.I. is correct. I see the error of advocates in media, misapplying the term "A.I. Sage" when touting it's possible benefits. That they miss the simple fact that "Being Smart is not the same thing as being Wise" is disturbing. A.I. will be like having a super-intelligent child - but one that you never gave a lesson in Morality and Ethics. The outcome of that is a super-intelligent Psychopath. Asimov's Rules of Robotics are inadequate - because at the base of them is - What is the definition of "Good". And who gets to define that word?
I like the analogy with Artificial Intelligence, but it was too short to be pervasive. Perhaps you could expand on the concept with additional examples in another video?
The quiz for this video is here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1706767722750x574013656206934000
My mother worked in a hospital X-Ray Department in the early 1950's. 12 years later, she had her first cancer removed. She developed at least 4 completely different kinds of cancer over the next 50 years. All of her colleagues from that Department developed cancers.
@@RWBHere intereating, as I was under the impression that the hazards of radiation were well known by the 50s such that we were already using lead to block them by then.
I remember when I was a kid, in the late 1950s, my feet were x-rayed in a shoe store to determine my shoe size. Glad my feet survived! :-)
Labatory?
perfect score. The last question was a bit of a trick question lol.
X-Ray soap?!? Well, if every thing is marketed with "quantum" these days, I want some quantum soap. I can be clean and dirty at the same time... until my wife observes me and collapses my cleanliness wave function.
Imagine that? Meta material soap…i can only imagine the rashes.
@@stakeaphobicz498 You have a rash and no rash at the same time, and it's not until you scratch you figure out which it is.
Quantum Foam
But everything is made of atoms, and atoms are made of quantum things.
So isn't everything literally quantum?
Lmao, waiting for manager to measure my work kpi wave function
My favourite is that as an ICU nurse, we had several x-rays done every day in the unit. To warn us, the technicians always called out “exposing “ when they were ready to shoot. That always amused me and I sometimes teased them, saying “promises, promises!”
I dont get it
Gotta love them sex-ray technicians 😂
@74bassman nurses are devilishly horny.
I am here to write this because of X Rays. My mother was the receptionist in the office of the first doctor in Memphis, Tennessee to have an X Ray Machine. My dad was structural engineer. He met my mom at that office when he went there to design the floor referment necessary because of the weight of the lead shielding.
3:30 "Twitter-rays" was an excellent pun. Thank you for that😂👏🏾
The story about haphazardly using x-ray for everything, before finding out if it's safe or not, is basically the same story for Radium. It was in everything like cosmetics, toothpaste and food. I am happy that i live in a time with comparatively strict safety regulations
Such a nice and entertaining Saturday report! I was at Röntgen´s house-of-birth in the town of Remscheid, Western Germany, which is a museum today. It´s astonishing how primitive the scientific equipment you can view there, was made at those days. Sabine, if your list allows, perhaps you can do a similar report about Ettore Majorana one day?
Interesting. I've never been there, should visit some time!
Could also visit his house and the lab in Würzburg where the discovery happened.
@@duncan.o-victhank you
@beingsentient In some languages, Dutch, German, Scandinavians and Japanese they're indeed named like the discoverer. But I think Röntgen himself called them X-Strahlen.
I do wonder one thing though: is this really a cautionary tale (I'm talking before the understanding of the ills of xrays)? Yes, many people became irrecoverably sick or died from the x-rays machines, but many more so were likely saved by the proper diagnostics resulting from the x-ray machine. Had the x-ray been banned until properly studied, these lives also need to be accounted for. And if it were truly banned, it would have likely taken much longer to figure out these issues, by nature of less people involved with it
Between the discovery of radiation and discovery of its harmfulness, they were marketing a lot of wares as radioactive (radioactive mineral water, radioactive cosmetics), in positive sense. It was thought to have wonderful properties, for example healing wounds or promoting youthfulness. X-Ray labels were a subset of this “radio-enthusiasm” of the 1900s, 10s, 20s and 30s… Some cases continued until mid 50s, though… 💀
I thought about how radium was added into cosmetics etc. 😬
They still sell stuff with radioactive material in them, selling them as health thingies without mentioning the radioactive part.. See for example bigclive's "Amazon fake 5G safety stickers hazard" or The Thought Emporium's "Negative Ion/Anti-5g Products Are Actually RADIOACTIVE".
What a lovely and memorable description of discovery in science. Thanks.
It's a nice example of how "playing around with stuff" is really the ONLY way to make new discoveries. When you're playing with something you are letting that something speak for itself.
The world changed in the 1890s. Two amazing "lucky donkeys" changed the world forever. The discovery of x-rays led Becherel to think he could activate his phosphors using UV from the sun and maybe emit x-rays, as phosphors glowed just like the lenard tube. Luckily just like the chance discovery of x-rays, Becherel used one of his phosphorescent Uranium minerals against a film plate to take a shadow radiograph just like x-rays. Suddenly it was realized certain rocks and chemicals gave off strange rays and never stopped giving them off with no power applied....Nuclear radiation was discovered in 1896...Exactly 49 years later, the first atomic bomb was exploded! One lucky donkey led another lucky donkey a year apart to change the world forever.
also CRT TVs work in similar principle as to X Rays me thinks
I love donkeys, they are so cute and lovely! good to see this somehow positive usage of them in a dialect.
Just popping in to say, donkeys are more intelligent than often given credit for.
Excellent as always. It made me want to learn more. Was the Hertz that Wilhelm Röntgen worked with the same Hertz of frequency? The articles focused more on Röntgen so it was hard to tell. Still, if true the meeting of such great minds during that period is wondrous and not an accident. Thank you, Sabine!
On the topic of reducing exposures in medical x-ray imaging: beside the factors you mentioned, another big one was the introduction, ca 1980, of rare-earth screens, which convert the x-rays into visible light, which more efficiently exposes photographic plates, thus further reducing the x-ray intensity needed to get a usable image.
Thanks for another top-notch video!
Fred
PS. "laboratory" is misspelled, "labatory" twice, early in the video.
I was a young radiographer having qualified in 1980. We experimented with single screen rare earth. That was back in the days when non screen films were still being used for high detail extremity work. I retired 6 years ago and now spend some time each week looking at tutor radiographer channels from the Indian subcontinent where the worst radiography in the world is performed. Incomplete or incorrect series. Rotation of fractures of the femur and humerus. Crazy low kV. Most of all, it is the total lack of collimation. Here is a current example of a scaphoid series including the elbow joint. ruclips.net/video/5HQCFxo1jck/видео.htmlsi=slwwF-6msMGEAic1 and a response video I made how to perform a baby chest xray. ruclips.net/video/pMWYSfWRDek/видео.htmlsi=6c7Jp8UbR4jngVHK. You are obviously in the xray profession. Will you pass my test on xray beam geometry that 75% of qualified radiographers fail yet only 5% of radiologists? ruclips.net/video/mZPD_gLs5Dw/видео.htmlsi=e5HMqOBuOfOlomlu Please look at my channel for lowest dose radiography of the spine
Would love to see more historical reports like this one - fascinating and engaging.
Sabine, I have learned more about science from you than anyone in my entire life. Thank you for the time you take making these videos that dummies like me can understand.
In Japan, x-rays are known as Rentogen. I finally understand WHY.
レントゲン
They're called Röntgen rays in Finnish. Probably also a lot of (European?) languages.
@@noob19087 In France we call them X-rays (Rayons X).
@@theslay66 Oh yeah, I've seen that! Our XRF spectrometer (which uses X-rays) has "Rayons X" written on it, which I always thought sounded funny.
@@noob19087 it would be even more funny, if it was an X-ray colored crayon.
@@noob19087 Same in Dutch: Röntgenstraling. And X-ray machines are called Röntgen apparatus.
Shielding and _filtering_ of the x-rays are both of importance in lowering the dose. Bremstrahlung has a low energy tail that only deposits energy in the patient. Filtering these energies greatly enhances safety while not affecting diagnostic accuracy.
5:34 Indeed, I did, at the Clarke's shoe shop in the 1960s. Considering that they didn't switch the machine on for me to stick my feet in I can only assume that everything apart from the slot that you put your feet in was well shielded, that or everyone in its immedaite vicinity was being constantly bombarded with the radiation... I am still here at age 69, so the occasional foot X ray didn't cause any lasting damage!
Go with the latter assumption. Capitalists don't bother with petty things like shielding.
@@ThatOpalGuy You are probably correct; when at fairs and sales I live in hope of seeing one for sale just to find out. In all likelihood it would have had the tube removed to make it fit to sell so I will probably never know. The only two I ever saw and used were installed near the door to the shop, so you would get a dose even if you were just asking for directions.
My mom would take me and my three younger brothers to Sears department store to shop for clothes and shoes at the start of the new school year. While waiting we would amuse ourselves by sticking our feet into the machine and watching our feet as we wriggled our toes.
How many toes do you have?😅
@@tonynicholson3328 The usual 13... I had more but the years haven't been kind.
Amazing story about historical discoveries. Would love to see more of these. Perhaps do one about gamma rays?
must have been spooky seeing your bones poppin up like that at that time lol
The next "killer app" for the new generation of smart phones.
I bet for a split second he thought he had just zapped off his skin then realized nothing was wrong.
"Our" bones? With who specifically do you share bones?is whoever that is asinine enough to find himself or herself funny and share you distaste for the letter G, and which song do you sin, when in the mood for a sinson?
I can only imagine how startling that would be! It's even startling when you have an idea of what to expect. (A much younger me may, or may not, have made an x-ray machine decades ago, inspired by fellow engineer Clair L Stong.)
Yes, good old Röntgen! Same as Marie Curie and many others, who discovered something completely new and didn't think of potential consequences. But how could they, respective science was still developing.
However, I think there is still a lot left to discover today. It's just that it isn't so easy to do any longer. But we (i.e., the scientists and people in charge) should have learned considering potential consequences. And of course that's what all we are doing, right? ...right!?
Like experimenting with deadly viri (viruses)?
I viewed my own feet in a fluoroscope at age 8 in 1952. I've had a lot of X-rays during cancer treatment at age 60
My father was a physics teacher and I remember him showing us the x-ray tube in action, looking at his hands and so on many times. That shoe-X-ray box was also a fun thing for me to look at at length. Think he eventually got scared because he warned me later about using a microwave oven :)
A CT scan (equivalently CAT scan, calcium score) exposes you to between 6 months and several years of background radiation. A single CT scan increases your risk of cancer by 15 to 50 times (known as a odds ratio, based on a large study of over 100 million people). For comparison, if you have a common heart arrhythmia called atrial fibrillation, they treat it as if you have an extremely elevated risk of having a stroke because it is 5 times that of a normal person - notice odds ratio of just 5 rather than 15 or more.
A CT scan is very useful and important in some cases, like to check for bleeding in your brain that could kill you if not detected, but avoid CT scans if not necessary. Other x-rays like dental, bones, chest and so on are much much safer as Sabine assures us. And note that MRIs do not use radiation at all, they use magnetism that is very safe.
Strictly speaking, MRIs do use radiation. However, the electromagnetic radiation used is at radio frequencies, which is harmless. (People who claim to be "radiosensitive" and mobile phone mast opponents may disagree, but the science is against them.)
@@robertfitzjohn4755 True. I think the distinction is the term "ionizing radiation" which means (like X-rays and gamma rays and nuclear radiation), radiation that is energetic enough to alter molecules in your body. I suppose there are people who fear flashlights and radios, but I think that's irrational and outside of scientific evidence. MRIs and ultrasound are by far the safest imaging technologies. If in doubt people should read more about it. There are a lot of resources and studies. They will also learn that risks from radiation are cumulative, so the more exposure the more risk.
A CT scan can be done on an extremity like a hand or knee. That will give a patient about 1/100th the body dose as a chest/ abdomen/pelvis contrast series. One is a single scan, the other is most of the body done 3 times. Comparing radiation doses is extremely difficult with plain radiography. A chest xray is not the same as a finger xray in body exposed, scatter produced and sensitivity of the organs like sternum and thyroid.
Nice! I have had several and dozens of normal x-rays too, quite a few on my head. And all of them were not needed other than ruling out other issues. I've just had bad luck with health and 90% of my issues were caused by medicine in general in an ironic twist which always manifests in a serious symptoms that mimic other dangerous conditions but end up being no cause found, hence needing CT, x-ray and MRI among others.
We pay for information using risk.@@3800S1
I love your German accent when you correctly pronounce Roentgen and Einstein. I think it makes you sound like Einstein and so authoritative. 😊
Es ist möglich das sie wirlklich Deutsch sint. "pardon my French"
@@84com83 if I am translating this correctly, then I thank you.
Loved the History lesson, Dr.!
The excitement of a scientist finding a totally unexpected phenomen, the experiments, to see how it may have constructed the hypothesis... More of this, please!
As a child in the mid '50's I remember visiting the shoe department in Alexander's in the Bronx which had a shoe & foot x-ray machine on the floor. I tried, but fortunately it was no longer operational. Unfortunately the words on Roentgen's house, "die nach ihm bennaten strahlen" [the rays which bare his name] is lost on most Americans; he would have had to change his name to "Dr. X" if he wanted that recognition in this country.
Had he called himself Dr. X, he would've been obligated to use his skills for evil from then on.
There is still just as much new science to discover, it's just that there probably isn't much left you can discover on your kitchen table.
I remember the X-Ray room at the school dentist. Sitting in that chair with the led blankets covering all but my face, alone in near darkness, waiting for the loud hum, twice, and then waiting in fear for what Dr Holte might do to me😭
Ah, childhood trauma, brings a warm fuzzy feeling to my tummy🤪
Heh... I remember visiting a friend in Russia, and we took her cat to a vet to treat a hurt paw. The vet asked me: "Please hold the cat over that plate while I stand behind this lead plate and operate the X-ray". The machine was huge and noisy as heck. Yeah that made me feel loads better...
At least the cat recovered and lived for a good 20 years...
I am old enough to remember that during the 1950s shoe stores used to have X-ray machines into which you inserted your shod feet to see how well the new shoes that you were trying on were fitting.
Sabine puts out a video and I instantly feel irradiated with knowledge. Thanks for helping me to see through things better ❤ hair is falling out though 😅
I'm in the Imaging field and find this story fascinating. I'm grateful to live at this time where we have much of the basic science figured out, yet many advances in science and medicine are yet to come. Even in physics.😊
Watching a Hossenfelder video is like getting a college master class in the time it takes to drink your morning coffee.
They pop up at 3am for me - justification for insomnia.
"He deliberately did not patent them." *unhappy sigh* How I wish we still had people like that around today ...
The same thing happened with radioactivity. Product like radium chocolate and even radium toothpaste and radioactive socks were promoted as some kind of miracle health products. At the same time the women painting watches with radium paint were loosing their teeth and getting cancer from working with the radium paint.
I saw one of the x-ray shoe fitting machines (in a non-working condition) at the Museum of Questionable Medical Devices in Minneapolis, MN 20 years ago. I believe that it was transferred to the collections of Museum of Science in that city when the curator, a gentleman named Bob McCoy, passed.
Fascinating! Thanks a bunch for the history lesson, Sabine! 😃
Stay safe there with your family! 🖖😊
Thanks Sabine I really appreciate how you break down his experiments like that love what you do.
Looks like extra work has gone into this production. Very nice!
Ah Twitter-Rays. Reminds me of the popular superhero group Twitter-Men composed mostly of angsty, mutant teenagers who spend their time fighting each other as much as they do with villains. Kind of like Twitter in real life, actually.
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this informative and timely video. Great job. Keep it up.
Please put more quizzes at the end of your videos, helps to keep engagement and retention. Thanks for all your hard work for your videos.
You know Sabine, people of all times have made the same argument that it's harder to discover new stuff now because so much has already been discovered. Probably not true in terms of sheer quantity, but perhaps new easy stuff to discover has dwindled.
Interesting.One feels for scientists,so many barriers to overcome when new knowledge is encountered,applied to inventions or techniques
FYI - your humor 😂 love it!!! Twitter rays 😂
There's more to discover today than back then in the late 19th century because the more we know the more we realize we don't know. Also because our present day knowledge is more profound and it lets us view the world around us in more detail and more depth. Back then they didn't even know what the Galaxy was, today we are probing the Universe back to the birth of the CMB, which they didn't know about either, and looking into the depths of black holes.
Story very well told!
Yes, that shoe ad! As a kid I loved going into shoe shops so that I could look at the bones in my feet through their X-ray fitting machine... 😀
I remember my mother taking me to the Buster brown shoe store and having my feet X-rayed in my shoes back in the late 1950s
I knew some of this history and did some research in HS on the hows of x-rays. Excellent video.
A very revealing video Sabine 👍A video about Madame Curie and radiation would be much appreciated
Safety point - don't forget the operators Sabine. Radiographers / Radiologic Technologists have a large role including batting away unhelpful, non-indicated examination requests (no, they're not orders as in being compelled, despite what's said).
You must be a radiographer. So am I. My entire professional life for 30 years was trying to teach radiographers to give up on centring point and use collimation based positioning. This was hampered by very few radiographers understanding the geometry of the xray beam. Pushing the tube angulation button and angling the tube doesn't change the position of the tube focus so changing the centring point through angulation will only change collimation. Lack of this knowledge meant almost all of the Townes projections of the skull included a totally pointless and dangerous dose to the face and neck and sometimes, chest. Take a look at the way Indian radiographers do that projection. Take the test yourself and don't be surprised if you fail but let that motivate you to ensuring the next generation doesn't make the same mistake ruclips.net/video/mZPD_gLs5Dw/видео.htmlsi=e5HMqOBuOfOlomlu Take a look at my channel to see how I produce the lowest possible dose for the plain radiography of the spine.
There were many products that promised ''Health'' benefits. One was a table top water dispenser, similar to ones today that use replacable filters, except these water dispensers radiated the water to both ''clean'' it and make it energetic...
Very interesting video about x-rays. 👌👍👍
I remember as a child being in the shoe department with my Mother.
There was a big wooden box type of platform on which you would stand and at the bottom of the platform there was a hole where you would put your feet. At the top of this device was a viewing screen. When you looked through the viewing screen you could see the bones in your feet moving in real time. Even as a child, I thought it was some sort of joke thing to sell shoes.
As I got older and found out it was an X-ray machine I was horrified.
I mean, come on an X-ray machine in a shoe shop? ☠
One thing I was amazed at was the fact that you could see your toes and other bones of your feet moving in real time. I only remember because it was so strange.
I wonder how much damage was done to children's feet with those shoe machines. 😳
Imagine standing in a lab and realizing unknown rays go trough your body
The fact he didn't patent the tech so it could proliferate the benefits is inspiring. Sadly, the comparison to AI ends up sad for somewhat equal and opposite reasons (not owning the training data; rapid release for profit and more training data), and the dangers are alarmingly high. Oops, I meant considerably high. Don't want to be labeled an alarmist.
Those dangers are also widely distributed, making them harder to do anything about.
At least we are adapting quickly in this new age of urgency, noise, and media blame laundering. I'm sure AI won't contribute to our conundrum at all.
AI generated summary: AI is modern and cool, just like X-Rays.
Instead of not patenting the tech, perhaps it would be better to patent and license it, and either license it only to corporations that won't price-gouge or establish a philanthropic foundation to distribute the inventor's share of the profits.
Regards the ad for Brilliant - that's what your channel is! I love the regular content, always interesting, always very well presented with a nice slice of humour!
I read a lot of articles on Röntgen's discovery. Nowhere the voltage used is indicated. It takes voltages >> 5 kV for X ray production, and these voltages need a quite good vacuum within the tube. So I guess it was a specialized and well equipped lab.
Early xray machinery used a 'spark gap' technique for determining kV. A massive spark jumped a gap and energised the tube which must have been terrifying. I worked with old radiographers in the late 70s who had experience with these machines. I also worked with direct screening which involved a pitch dark room except for illumination by a red light. That was before the image intensifier.
I'm disappointed that Röntgen didn't go with calling the radiation 'skeleton rays' instead.
or Jesus beams
In many countries they are actually called Röntgen Rays.
That name is reserved for rays which turn you into an actual skeleton
Then again, that might be simply a question of intensity
Röntgen called it bremsrahlung radiation because the electromagnetic radiation was given off when a particle slowed down or “braked.”
@@rlsmith6904 Thanks for that info.
5:46 "cannot explode" lol well thats certainly a plus
Were they formerly known as twitter?
Na, they are still know as relevant.
Ha
3:27
Twitter rays
Guess you were one of them that was not paying attention.
Ebenezer McBurney Byers (April 12, 1880 - March 31, 1932) was an American socialite, sportsman, and industrialist. He won the 1906 U.S. Amateur in golf. He died from multiple radiation-induced cancers after consuming Radithor, a patent medicine made from radium dissolved in water.
Is the story of the key image apocryphal?
As a long time ago student teacher it amazed me how teachers would sit a small group of kids dangerously close to a TV set. It is doubtful but unlikely the X-ray dose was safe. My cautions were always ignored. Then there was the large white goods store where the salesman had twenty or so TV sets, all blaring out rays and arranged in a semi-circle with an approximate 'focal point'. I don't need to point out where 'everyone' stood. Not good for the nerves. We all make mistakes; the error is in not listening.
Lastly, you mentioned the lure of earlier times; the instant cure for such wishing is to imagine a trip to the dentist - 'AAAAHHHHHH!' (pronounced as on Bugs Bunny).
As ever, enjoyed your presentation.
It warms my heart that Roentgen did not patent his discovery. A true pioneer for the good of humanity.
Isotope Soap. (Punk song)
@SabineHossenfelder - According to a biography of Nikola Tesla I once read, Tesla had discovered these same spooky rays several years earlier, without using vacuum tubes, because his voltages were high enough to produce strong ionization of air at normal pressure. But as the bio said, Tesla was not interested in pursuing this oddity, and passed all his research on it to Röntgen upon hearing of Röntgen's interest in the subject. _And btw Sabine, you really look good in those glasses._ :-)
Philip Lenard might have noticed them first but not bothered with it. The radiographers have these digital plates they put under the patient, it transmits back the image, no wires. I think that's cool.
Does anyone remember “X-ray specs”, a novelty pair of glasses (spectacles) that were advertised in comic books and magazines in the 1950’s & 60’s? They were supposed to let you “see through” objects like an X-ray machine.
Then there was the punk group, “X-ray Specs” in the 1980’s. They were high energy.
I remember a shoe fitting machine back 70 years ago.i stood on a step while my mother and the salesman commented about the fit. I stood there several minutes while they decided if the shoe fit properly
In Dutch they're still called Röntgenstraling.
Oh, I love that name. But I’m afraid Americans can’t handle more than 1 or 2 syllables. Maybe it’s too hard to say or takes too long to say or can’t be put in a rap song. Lol
in german, it's almost the same: Röntgenstrahlung / Röntgenstrahlen (Strahlung = radiation, Strahlen = rays)
The same goes for Norwegian: røntgenstråling.
@@ximalas And Danish :p
@@edwardlulofs444I'm an American who can speak 5 languages including German and read Middle Egyptian.
Thanks for the cool historical video!
born in 52. i remember the x-ray shoe fitting machines
I'm a 'Forty-niner and I've stuck my feet into that big wood console more than once., back in the day. Meanwhile, my Mom and the shoe salesman peered into the view ports while the salesman "diagnosed" the fit. What a show.
Imagine travelling back in time to a point before the discovery, discovering the rays yourself and naming them Twitter-Rays.
Always interesting and entertaining Sabine
0:42 are Nixie tubes; possibly the best invention of vacuum tube electronics (excluding amplifiers, hehe).
i find the actual path individuals & industry took to discover things & stuff utterly fascinating... especially foods...,
I'm old enough that as a child there were X-ray devices at shoe stores and you would see your foot inside your shoe before buying.
For me the most frustrating thing about society today whether it is in Europe or North America especially is that people think they are much smarter than they were in 1895...without actually being so. Whether it is AI or any of the new technologies being developed to fight the Climate Crisis, people need to do more than research something on Goodle to form an opinion on things that can alter peoples lives in a big way.
They manipulate much of the information.. I guarantee you can do a bunch of research on climate change and I'll do an old archives of government weather history and show the 1920s were much hotter than today. I can do research and find we used to have many more above 100f degree days worldwide. I can do research and find out over half of the wildlife and domestic cattle died from record hot temps and record drought in the 1950s in the lower USA. But the climate change activists will start their comparison with the 1970s, which was a time during record cold to the point all leading scientists agreed the world was cooling. I have noticed the official government weather archives are getting harder to find, wonder why?
@@Bryan-HensleyClimate Crisis (formerly called global warming and climate change) is about power and control. Just listed to Sabine's fellow German *Claus Schwab.* (Notice that Sabina never pokes fun at him!)
@@Bryan-Hensley *cringe* How ironic to post something like that under a comment bemoaning how many people fall prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect. You should seriously consider the probability of you being wrong due to misunderstanding complex stuff, before assuming that there's a worldwide conspiracy of scientists.
@@danielh.9010 sorry, you are what's called brainwashed..
I have followed climate change since 1985 and the predictions from then have come true. Remember that 4 times more climate change is occurring at the poles and most of the heating is occurring to the seas. You think we should bury our heads in the sand of ignorance and false hope@@Bryan-Hensley
It's a bit of a worry when you have had way more x-rays and CT scans than the average person.
great video! thanks. A little missing here is at least some minimal explanation why the X radiation went in all directions while the "cathode ray" was uni-directional?
This is my favorite video of yours. Thank you.
Thank you for the video.
My mother was born in 1915. Her mother died in 1923 of "Leukemia". There was a "radium" craze in the years before this happened, it was prescribed for colds and flu... There was a physician in the family. Both of my mother's parents eventually died of cancers. She was terrified of "cancer" but had no memory of radium treatments... She died 13 months short of her Century. Not from cancer.
This was an interesting video. Thank you.
Who are you quoting?
I was recently in Wurzburg on a tour, but did not have enough free time to visit the museum. It seem that I really missed out.
the twitter joke just got me :) LOL
I remember a shoe store having one when I was very young. Anybody could walk up and look at the bones in their feet. I was at that machine every chance I got. Luckily, we lived out of town, so I still have feet. I think this was after these machines were supposed to have been banned, or at least had access restricted, but am no longer certain.
I can recommend the Conrad Röntgen Museum, it is fascinating
well presented ...
If my science teachers would have got a Sabine's sense of humour , I would be seating in different space and time .
Reminds me of physics experimenting I did in high school, in 1965. I didn’t know it was that easy to create x-rays, neither did my physics teacher apparently. And now I have CML, a form of leukemia, whose one known cause is x radiation. I hope science fairs are more cautious these days.
I think they need to do more in-depth study on cancer and the amount of lifetime x rays someone receives..
@@Bryan-Hensley didn't they already do it?
@@Puzomor I'm not sure how recently.
@@Bryan-Hensley since we know exactly what frequency range xrays fall in, we can measure how much we're exposed xrays occurring from nature, or more precisely space. If we then expose xray imaging patients with doses similar to those they're exposed to each and every day for their whole lives, we can be sure we're not harming them too much.
Of course, we're still increasing the chance patients get cancer a bit earlier they would otherwise.
In almost every scenario, taking that chance does less harm to patients compared to not having those xray images taken, and therefore miss out on getting a faster and more accurate diagnosis.
So yes, xrays do have a negative effect on the body. That's why doctors only use them when the alternative is even worse.
I´ll transition into a critique in a moment, so I'll cautiously start with my statements that: all science communication is good, valid and important - and Dr. Sabine is an Internet-ional treasure. That being said, as someone who merely (but copiously) consumes science communication, I feel more and more frustration with the mere phenomenology science communicators often present us with. A never-ending, bigger and bigger tsunami of´: here´s this new data/study/finding. Hardly ever do we get the chance to follow a trail of abstractions, observe overlaying principles, meanings, interconnectedness of knowledge... not only `Look at this new tree we found!' but also 'And this changes how we think about the woods, because... and, speaking of woods: ...' For example, a throwaway line Dr. Sabine makes towards the end of the video: "... (back then) there was so much more to discover." WAS THERE? I kind of want to challenge the validity of that statement. Was there MORE to discover? Or was it (in hindsight only) "easier"? Do we have a way of quantifying discoverable knowledge for such a comparison? (Obviously not, hello, unknown unknowns) But what a nice thing to dive into deeper, for example, and watch you think about. (Rather then a piece of well-known biography that can easily be read off a wikipedia page.)
6:56 I like how that there is a moral attached to this video
"Twitter-rays" should not have had me cracking up.
Your caution about A.I. is correct. I see the error of advocates in media, misapplying the term "A.I. Sage" when touting it's possible benefits. That they miss the simple fact that "Being Smart is not the same thing as being Wise" is disturbing. A.I. will be like having a super-intelligent child - but one that you never gave a lesson in Morality and Ethics. The outcome of that is a super-intelligent Psychopath. Asimov's Rules of Robotics are inadequate - because at the base of them is - What is the definition of "Good". And who gets to define that word?
I remember the x-ray machine at the shoe shop way back then, and seeing my feet on it.
I was very angry my mom wouldn't let me try it. She was a nurse and saw the damage of too many X-rays. I got a pencil box instead.
Interesting stuff.
I wonder how many import discoveries began with “hey, why is that thing glowing”?
I like the analogy with Artificial Intelligence, but it was too short to be pervasive. Perhaps you could expand on the concept with additional examples in another video?
A not so well known fact: Ivan Puluj discovered X-rays long before Röntgen. And he even used them for medical diagnosis. 🤷🏻♂️
He didn't report his discovery until after Röntgen.