- #1
acesuv
- 63
- 0
I hear they emit radiation which deionizes atoms. Is this due to the frequency of the x-ray? Is x-ray light considered radiation?
Danger said:Actually, it's ionizing, not deionizing radiation, but that distinction is not important here.
Please keep in mind, though, that medical X-rays are not taken just for fun or profit. If you are requested by your doctor to take one, do so; it can save your life.
sophiecentaur said:It was not always the case. When I was young, they had X Ray machines in shoe shops
Danger said:I suspect that you're from the same era as me, though (birth certificate chiseled into a stone tablet). We never had non-medical ones on this side of the pond, but there was certainly no issue with what was available through doctors.
Them are libelous words, Sir, and I must insist that you retract them!sophiecentaur said:That's almost unbelievable - bearing in mind how 'commercial' the US has always been.
That's a bit of a mess: X-rays aren't light. Light is visible EM radiation. X-rays are EM radiation that is not at a visible frequency. But/so yes: x-rays are radiation.acesuv said:Is x-ray light considered radiation?
That might explain a few things. The closest that we got to that here was doctors recommending cigarettes for everything from stomach ache to anxiety. (I remember one hanging out of a doctor's mouth as he examined me.)sophiecentaur said:my Mum took me every week to a clinic and she (!) held a radium pad against the thing until it went away. Horrific.
Danger said:That might explain a few things. The closest that we got to that here was doctors recommending cigarettes for everything from stomach ache to anxiety. (I remember one hanging out of a doctor's mouth as he examined me.)
Danger said:I suspect that you're from the same era as me, though (birth certificate chiseled into a stone tablet). We never had non-medical ones on this side of the pond, but there was certainly no issue with what was available through doctors.
StaceyPurcher said:Uhhh, what about things like at airports and such with x-ray machines to scan your bags as you go through...
Aren't they x-ray machines...
sophiecentaur said:True, but they are screened and you don't stand in them. Worry more about the staff who sit at them for hours on end. If their union allows it, the dose must be minimal, I think.
The body scanners use backscatter X Rays which use a very low dose and your body is scanned by a 'flying spot' X Ray beam. Normal tissue will just absorb it but when it encounters metal on the surface, the detectors get a scattered signal and they know which direction it came from. I Googled it and found a lot of journalistic stuff with a tiny amount of good information embedded, occasionally.
sophiecentaur said:I have looked at the press photograph on your posts. Are you sure you never had some of the same treatment?
Remeber it well... went to Timpsons every saturday to have my feet X-rayd...couldn't afford the shoes unfortunately, but feet were always warm on saturday...and I still have them.sophiecentaur said:It was not always the case. When I was young, they had X Ray machines in shoe shops to make sure that kids' shoes fitted correctly for 'healthy feet'!
Last time I visited my Dentist he suggested that I would be better to forgo my regular X Ray check-up in the interest of my general health. How the pendulum has swung.
russ_watters said:That's a bit of a mess: X-rays aren't light. Light is visible EM radiation. X-rays are EM radiation that is not at a visible frequency. But/so yes: x-rays are radiation.
sophiecentaur said:Six toes on each side?
I don't think many people would use the term "light" to describe the way a radio wave is received. Likewise, ionising radiation is so different in important respects that it would be misleading to include it as light (except, possibly, for the bit just to the left of violet in the colours of the rainbow).ZombieFeynman said:This distinction is not always true and, in my opinion, hinders understanding. It is rather common in physics to refer to electromagnetic radiation of all frequencies as light, distinguishing light we can see by prefixing it with visible. This usage is not universal, but it is widespread enough that I suggest disregarding the bolded sentence above.
sophiecentaur said:I don't think many people would use the term "light" to describe the way a radio wave is received. Likewise, ionising radiation is so different in important respects that it would be misleading to include it as light (except, possibly, for the bit just to the left of violet in the colours of the rainbow).
Whilst the common features of all frequencies of EM radiation are plain and should be emphasised, the distinctions are almost as relevant.
Danger said:I just find it easier to think of them all as light to avoid confusion. As an example:
A UV light source is racing away from me at relativistic speed, so I perceive it as being IR. Someone in between, moving at some other speed, will see "visible" light. Birds and insects consider UV to be "visible", since they can see it. Under the proper conditions, I can see the IR output of my TV remote control. How can we avoid the fact that they're all the same thing?
Danger said:Well, consider them as sound then. A piano is somewhat comprehensive. There are lots of sounds off of either end, but you can't access them from that keyboard. They're still sound, though, even though the ultrasonics can weld plastic and the infrasonics can crumble buildings.
Oh, man! New word of the day...sophiecentaur said:It's not worth getting too aerated about imo.
That's what you get from going to a good English School, my boy. We learned to talk proper and learned a huge vocabulary. (I can refer to you a 'son' now I know about your extreme youth.)Danger said:Oh, man! New word of the day...
I'll be using that one, for sure.
The fact is, I just call the whole damned works EM, but I wouldn't razz someone for calling them radio waves.
sophiecentaur said:We learned to talk proper and learned a huge vocabulary.