When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
When X-Rays were used at the Shoe Store
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/when-xrays-were-all-the-rage-a-trip-to-the-shoe-store-was-dangerously-illuminating
125 comments
Those machines were terrible but you have to be a little wistful for the days when the American public actually liked science and liked products associated with it.
One could argue that the disdain for science today could also be related to this kind of thing.
You do need to understand that there was a point in history when Science™ and Progress™ turned into the things that brought us world wars and atomic bombs.
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.
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 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".
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".
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'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.
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.
So glad I'm not the only one :) there was something weirdly nice about having your foot in one of those machines. Perhaps it was just the effect of going from a hot, probably somewhat uncomfortable show, to the cold metal and freedom.
Well the ones I saw at that age definitely were the xray type. However they weren't being used when I tried to get measured.
It's possible. I'm older and I remember seeing my foot bones outlined in a very attractive green through one. These machines weren't rare items.
I wasn't old enough to understand the dangers, and of course most parents didn't understand them either.
It was all rather insane and reckless, and only luck rather than judgement kept them from becoming a major public health issue.
I wasn't old enough to understand the dangers, and of course most parents didn't understand them either.
It was all rather insane and reckless, and only luck rather than judgement kept them from becoming a major public health issue.
There was one in a store we used to visit in the late ‘40s. It wasn’t a shoe store - more of a small department store.
I’d stand on the thing, stick the fronts of my shoes into the two holes, lean over and look through the viewport (which was rather like an old stereopticon), push the button and wiggle my green toes.
The clerks never bothered me. I think I knew enough to keep the time short. I don’t remember if it had a timeout - it probably did.
I’d stand on the thing, stick the fronts of my shoes into the two holes, lean over and look through the viewport (which was rather like an old stereopticon), push the button and wiggle my green toes.
The clerks never bothered me. I think I knew enough to keep the time short. I don’t remember if it had a timeout - it probably did.
An older relative’s oncologist told him these machines were probably behind an increase in thyroid cancers of kids from the 50s.
Hard to prove the causation decades later, but that was the working assumption.
Hard to prove the causation decades later, but that was the working assumption.
I'm glad you asked as I'm only a few years younger than you and I have a distinct memory of these too - perhaps in Clarks stores? Must've been, for me anyway, up until around 1985, but that seems so late given how long at that point they'd been deemed dangerous?
My sister was x-rayed in the UK circa 1987, something to do with her feet being wider than the norm.
Same age, also UK, and yeah, they were still doing those when I was at school - definitely had at least one, vague memories of two.
Yes I also recall seeing them in Clarks but unused
I remember seeing and using the one from 1996 in my early childhood as displayed in this article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32738088#_=_
Not sure if these actually used X-rays but it'd be interesting to find out if they did.
EDIT: In hindsight, I really don't think the type I remember used X-rays.
ANOTHER EDIT: Looks like this is the company that made the ones I can remember: http://sensatech.com/applications/index.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32738088#_=_
Not sure if these actually used X-rays but it'd be interesting to find out if they did.
EDIT: In hindsight, I really don't think the type I remember used X-rays.
ANOTHER EDIT: Looks like this is the company that made the ones I can remember: http://sensatech.com/applications/index.html
My 89 year old mother loves to tell the story of her brother and friends spending several hours getting whatever body part they could push through the shoe slot below to be reported on how it looks by another child looking through the scope at the top. They were very disappointed that my uncle's head couldn't fit so they could examine his brain, (which they always figured had some bats in it)
And after getting a new pair of shoes, you brush your teeth with radioactive toothpaste!
"Its radioactive radiation increases the defenses of teeth and gums. The cells are loaded with new life energy, the bacteria are hindered in their destroying effect. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doramad_Radioactive_Toothpaste https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/toothpaste.ht...
"Its radioactive radiation increases the defenses of teeth and gums. The cells are loaded with new life energy, the bacteria are hindered in their destroying effect. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doramad_Radioactive_Toothpaste https://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/quackcures/toothpaste.ht...
Kills the bacteria and the patient too!
I remember these machines well. My father was a radiologist and wouldn't let us use them. He knew they were dangerous and the shoe sales people were unqualified.
As a side note, many of his fellow radiologists lost fingers because they didn't follow procedures using shields and lead gloves.
As a side note, many of his fellow radiologists lost fingers because they didn't follow procedures using shields and lead gloves.
Interesting and also scary - I guess it was ok for customers, but the employees using the machines would probably over time get a serious amount of radiation literally in their face (from what it looks like)? If you think that nowadays while making X-rays the medical personnel will either wear lead-lined aprons or leave the room altogether...
My dad worked in a shoe store when he was in high school. His friends would goof around with the machine during slow periods. Thankfully my dad stayed away from the thing.
Many lost feet or parts of them, never making a connection back to the fluoroscope. Nobody knew how much radiation those things were actually putting out.
(Ironically or not, I now work in medical physics where even the slightest exposure gets noted and tracked)
Many lost feet or parts of them, never making a connection back to the fluoroscope. Nobody knew how much radiation those things were actually putting out.
(Ironically or not, I now work in medical physics where even the slightest exposure gets noted and tracked)
Wait a minute - so you are saying that having parts of your foot fall off was just considered part of the normal high school experience? Does not sound right to me - surely a rash of radiation burns among teenagers would have been noticed, even in those days.
Some developed problems years down the road, this wasn't a Demon Core-class exposure situation.
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).
> 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 level, and it's certainly not something you'd want to have regularly.
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 level, and it's certainly not something you'd want to have regularly.
Aren't CT scans equivalent to about 3,000 chest X-Rays? It sounds pretty bad if you're young.
Not quite that bad. These days a chest CT scan (~7 mSv) is worth about 70 chest x-rays (0.1 mSv).
That's 2 years (CT) and 10 days (x-ray) of exposure to sea level background radiation respectively.
That's 2 years (CT) and 10 days (x-ray) of exposure to sea level background radiation respectively.
With some hand waving 100 roentgens is equal to 1 sievert
Radiation from x-rays is measured in microsieverts, or less than a single day’s exposure to background radiation
https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/den...
https://www.iaea.org/resources/rpop/health-professionals/den...
The old shoe store in my small town had one in the corner. My Dad asked about it. The clerk said it was dangerous and didn't want to use it. We kids were disappointed.
That was post WWII, so I don't know how long it'd been there. The fluoroscope I mean; the shoe store had been there for decades.
That was post WWII, so I don't know how long it'd been there. The fluoroscope I mean; the shoe store had been there for decades.
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.
Many things would be much cheaper if all safety protocols were removed. Cars are a great example: Safety features may add around $2k annually [0], though they've helped prevent a few hundred thousand deaths since 1980 roughly cutting in half the per-capita automobile fatalities. As it is, they cost about $44 billion annually [2] which means in addition to lives saved, the reduction in deaths save us up to $44 billion/year. (probably not all attributed to safety features given the reduction in drunk driving.)
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...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/winnablebattles/report/motor.html
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...
[2] https://www.cdc.gov/winnablebattles/report/motor.html
Car safety is an example of government regulation. Full stop. No free market anything involved. If the market was free, then it wouldn't be regulated. You're doublespeak-ing.
Are you saying there is no such thing as a free market? Or simply that it's not a "pure" free market? I'd go with the later.
Whatever you want to call the part of the economy that functions in part on competition between businesses, that competition has played a part in car safety. When businesses are marketing safety features, they are competing on safety features rather than (just) price or other factors. Those are market forces, whether or not they meet a specific definition of free market.
Whatever you want to call the part of the economy that functions in part on competition between businesses, that competition has played a part in car safety. When businesses are marketing safety features, they are competing on safety features rather than (just) price or other factors. Those are market forces, whether or not they meet a specific definition of free market.
You'd go with the latter because it still has the word "free market" in it, though the U.S. economy is not a free market. Again, this would be doublespeak, and you would be a liar. I'm just trying to maintain a grip on the real world here and it's pretty tough when you are so committed to gaslighting yourself and others. Honestly I'm only getting hung up on this right now because I think it's for your own good. You clearly have a loose grasp on reality if you're so eager to ignore government intervention, and you're going to get got sooner or later if you keep on with this irrational belief in free markets.
You are lowering a conversation into a name-calling flame war. It isn't necessary. I'm fine with not calling "the later" a free market. It is not, strictly speaking, a free market. But that term is also not used uniformly. Some use it strictly to refer to a hands-off market, others use it more generically to refer to something like "market forces". If you don't like that loose usage, it would be perfectly acceptable to say "Hey, that's not really a free market, that term means something else."
Or do you take issue with me saying there is a concept of a "free market" and another concept of a "(not pure) free market"? Honestly I don't know because you haven't taken the time explain your point of view before resorting to personal attacks, and calling someone a liar or irrational because they use a term more loosely than you'd prefer is an excellent way to shut down productive conversation. You have taken that path, so I won't bother to converse further unless you're willing to back off the flame-war rhetoric and explain your point of view without insults. If don't want to take the time for that, that's fine, I'm not entitled to your detailed explanations, in which case I wish you well, and ask you simply not to respond if that response will consist of insults.
Or do you take issue with me saying there is a concept of a "free market" and another concept of a "(not pure) free market"? Honestly I don't know because you haven't taken the time explain your point of view before resorting to personal attacks, and calling someone a liar or irrational because they use a term more loosely than you'd prefer is an excellent way to shut down productive conversation. You have taken that path, so I won't bother to converse further unless you're willing to back off the flame-war rhetoric and explain your point of view without insults. If don't want to take the time for that, that's fine, I'm not entitled to your detailed explanations, in which case I wish you well, and ask you simply not to respond if that response will consist of insults.
[deleted]
[deleted]
A fluoroscopic image is very low resolution compared to an actual film (then), or DICOM (now).
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.
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.
because the shoe salesman isn't a trained radiologist.
Aren't the two distinguished in the billing? And AFAIK you can get 'just an xray' from one provider then contract another radiologist for the analysis.
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.
The price of being imaged with one of these:
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.
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.
Yes I think this is [part of] the answer, not the cost of radiologists.
The radiologic technician's (aka radiographer) labor would also be part of the cost of the imaging. I suppose this is probably the job title the above comment was looking for.
A quick web search leads me to believe this is a minor expense. Either way, I expect the true cost of imaging, including the labor of the technician, is miraculous cheaper in developed countries other than America.
Sure, but that's an entirely different comparison than what was being discussed above.
All developed countries share the aforementioned facility, personnel, regulatory, and equipment costs that differentiate modern medicine from mid-20th-century shoe stores.
Even developing countries perform medical imaging to higher standards than the circumstances detailed in the article.
All developed countries share the aforementioned facility, personnel, regulatory, and equipment costs that differentiate modern medicine from mid-20th-century shoe stores.
Even developing countries perform medical imaging to higher standards than the circumstances detailed in the article.
"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?
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.
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.
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...
"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...
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).
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).
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.
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.
The early 20th century had an odd fascination with all things radioactive. I remember reading a Wall Street Journal article entitled "The Radium Water Worked Fine Until His Jaw Came Off" [1]. I can't find a WSJ reprint, but there are online copies available by searching the headline or a CNN article mentions it. [2]
Apparently Mr. Byers the maker and an avid drinker of the cola had to be buried in a lead-lined coffin. According to The New York Times [3], Mr. Byers' death triggered action from the FDA and brought an end to radioactive patent medicines.
From the CNN article:
Evans was an expert at measuring and mathematically modeling the human body's uptake and excretion of radioactivity. Based on Byers' self-reported RadiThor consumption, Evans' model had predicted that Byers' body would contain about 100,000 becquerel of radioactivity. ("Becquerel" is an international unit of radioactivity.) What he found was that Byers' skeletal remains actually had a total of 225,000 becquerel, suggesting that either Evans' model of radiation uptake was underestimating radium's affinity for bone, or alternatively, that Byers had actually understated his personal RadiThor consumption by a factor of at least two. It was not possible to determine which alternative accounted for the discrepancy.
For the sake of comparison, some water from the Fukushima disaster reads 200,000 becquerel, although different isotopes are involved and exposure limits vary by isotope, Mr. Byers was well beyond a reasonable limit by any measure. [4]
[1] http://lateralscience.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-radium-water-...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/health/energy-drinks-radioact...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1932/04/02/archives/death-stirs-acti...
[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/water-6-700-times-more-ra...
Apparently Mr. Byers the maker and an avid drinker of the cola had to be buried in a lead-lined coffin. According to The New York Times [3], Mr. Byers' death triggered action from the FDA and brought an end to radioactive patent medicines.
From the CNN article:
Evans was an expert at measuring and mathematically modeling the human body's uptake and excretion of radioactivity. Based on Byers' self-reported RadiThor consumption, Evans' model had predicted that Byers' body would contain about 100,000 becquerel of radioactivity. ("Becquerel" is an international unit of radioactivity.) What he found was that Byers' skeletal remains actually had a total of 225,000 becquerel, suggesting that either Evans' model of radiation uptake was underestimating radium's affinity for bone, or alternatively, that Byers had actually understated his personal RadiThor consumption by a factor of at least two. It was not possible to determine which alternative accounted for the discrepancy.
For the sake of comparison, some water from the Fukushima disaster reads 200,000 becquerel, although different isotopes are involved and exposure limits vary by isotope, Mr. Byers was well beyond a reasonable limit by any measure. [4]
[1] http://lateralscience.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-radium-water-...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/health/energy-drinks-radioact...
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1932/04/02/archives/death-stirs-acti...
[4] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/water-6-700-times-more-ra...
Michael Caine (as Harry Palmer) using a shoe shop X-Ray machine to examine a suspicious package. It's at the end of this clip.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPlOsrT0raQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPlOsrT0raQ
An older friend of mine told me the times were surreal. Doctors would casualy xray you for many minutes even when you got minor symptoms.
Then suddendly xray was considered harmful and you would only get on static image when you had serious problems.
Then suddendly xray was considered harmful and you would only get on static image when you had serious problems.
[deleted]
Now we know how Dijkstra's paper editor come out with the infamous phrase "considered harmful" :-)
Say, why can’t we recreate this with ultrasound?
Actually that seems like a good idea. Should I patent it?
Actually that seems like a good idea. Should I patent it?
Would require taking your shoes and socks off, smothering them in sonic gel, and having someone who knows how operate the wand.
some people would pay to work a job like that
I’m not sure about that. I’d imagine for a general outline of the foot with little need for detail it might be fine.
[deleted]
[deleted]
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.
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.
This is already a thing: my usual running shoe store went out of business because of Covid, and the new one I went to has a machine that scans your feet and builds a 3D model. Like flouroscopy, I suspect it's mostly a gimmick: the shoes I ended up getting there are fine but don't seem to be appreciably better than the ones I would get at the store which measured my feet the old-fashioned way.
My feet are pretty nonstandard. It's hard to find footwear that actually fits well, especially heavier mountaineering and hiking boots. This is something I've been wanting for a long time.
I found one of these units at an antique store in Maine, sadly the x-ray tube had been removed. Really nice cabinetry though and I thought this would make an awesome steampunk type accent to a workspace at some point.
And while this particular idea had its flaws, the idea of looking at a foot inside a shoe is fundamentally a good one in my opinion. Feet are pretty variable between people and the difference between having the right shoe and the wrong shoe is a good differentiator. I didn't appreciate how much until I got a pair of hiking boots (Asolo) that actually fit my particularly shaped foot. My father-in-law had custom shoes made for him on Hong Kong in the 60's and would send them a check when ever he wanted a new pair.
So startup idea is to use some sort of nuclear imaging technology that has no negative health effects to enhance shoe fitting and thus sales.
And while this particular idea had its flaws, the idea of looking at a foot inside a shoe is fundamentally a good one in my opinion. Feet are pretty variable between people and the difference between having the right shoe and the wrong shoe is a good differentiator. I didn't appreciate how much until I got a pair of hiking boots (Asolo) that actually fit my particularly shaped foot. My father-in-law had custom shoes made for him on Hong Kong in the 60's and would send them a check when ever he wanted a new pair.
So startup idea is to use some sort of nuclear imaging technology that has no negative health effects to enhance shoe fitting and thus sales.
My dentist has been telling me that digital x-rays have a dramatically lower dose than the old film kind (which I used to get as a child). I don't know how much lower is dramatically lower, but I think it might be orders of magnitude.
Maybe for what you want to see on the shoes you could use an even lower dose than the new dental x-rays. I mean, these old shoe store x-rays were trying to make the image directly visible to human eyes with a fluoroscope or something, right? Isn't that going to be orders of magnitude more radiation than modern sensors that aren't using the energy from the x-ray radiation to actually render the image?
Maybe for what you want to see on the shoes you could use an even lower dose than the new dental x-rays. I mean, these old shoe store x-rays were trying to make the image directly visible to human eyes with a fluoroscope or something, right? Isn't that going to be orders of magnitude more radiation than modern sensors that aren't using the energy from the x-ray radiation to actually render the image?
I think you're right. According to [0], and why would you need any other source for such things, a modern chest X-ray is about 20 µSv. Your two feet combined are smaller than your chest, and in a safer place for radiation, but let's call it the same conservatively.
From the same source, a 4,000-km cross-country flight is 40 µSv. We allow airline workers and other business travellers to rack up a couple of hundred of those a year without worrying too much, so it should be safe to try on at least dozens of pairs of shoes per year.
In practice, we'd surely demand too much regulatory burden for this tech to ever make it back to shoe stores. If shoe salesmen have to be as qualified, regulated and insured as radiologists, it would be cheaper to make custom shoes.
[0] https://xkcd.com/radiation/
From the same source, a 4,000-km cross-country flight is 40 µSv. We allow airline workers and other business travellers to rack up a couple of hundred of those a year without worrying too much, so it should be safe to try on at least dozens of pairs of shoes per year.
In practice, we'd surely demand too much regulatory burden for this tech to ever make it back to shoe stores. If shoe salesmen have to be as qualified, regulated and insured as radiologists, it would be cheaper to make custom shoes.
[0] https://xkcd.com/radiation/
Stephen King's It features one of these machines, in the 1958 part.
It's a shame, really. I was thinking about these machines recently as I was trying to come up with a method to drill through a soft and opaque material -- how would you know you were properly centered? Gosh, one of these would be handy.
It's a shame, really. I was thinking about these machines recently as I was trying to come up with a method to drill through a soft and opaque material -- how would you know you were properly centered? Gosh, one of these would be handy.
Unsure what material you need to drill. But for some soft materials the solution can be quite simple - freeze it to make it hard!
I remember having my shoe fit checked in the 50's by one of these machines, at Morgan's department store in Montreal.
There was an episode of American Restoration that featured a machine like this. They restored it (minus the X-ray part) with a stock X-ray picture so it would look like it still worked.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2348752/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2348752/
So what could we use as a solution nowadays? UWB radar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-wideband
My daughter has a pair of toddler shoes with a window in the sole so you can see where the toes are. It works, but I am not convinced it is necessary. You can tell pretty quick if the shoes do not fit by watching the kid try to walk.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/0f/ac/760fac925593ed258c93...
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/0f/ac/760fac925593ed258c93...
A Brannock device? (essentially calipers for feet)
https://brannock.com/
As a child, my mother would go to the shoe store and stare into these machines for hours, just for the entertainment value. Later in life, her feet were horribly deformed.
Many doctors stand for hours with their hands under the fluoroscope when working in the cath lab. It's not that dangerous if they're willing to do it.
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.
Shoe-fitting fluoroscope... there’s a massive shoe store near where I grew up that still has at least one (not operational). Very cool antique.
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 couch to marathon without taking the time to learn proper running technique and without giving their bodies time to adapt to running. All the while ingraining and reinforcing bad running habits. But at least we're no longer xraying people's feet for no apparent reason, so that's a start.
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 happier now. Properly designed insoles make pretty much any shoe comfortable for me (notably, the insoles aren't really padded, they're pretty hard). Walking around on hardwood floors barefoot makes my feet hurt.
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 happier now. Properly designed insoles make pretty much any shoe comfortable for me (notably, the insoles aren't really padded, they're pretty hard). Walking around on hardwood floors barefoot makes my feet hurt.
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, branches and rocks everywhere... you wind up putting a ton of stress on your feet, far more than you do walking around a house barefoot.
I think it’s far more likely that a) modern life causes children not to develop strong feet from an early age, or b) that evolutionary pressures for well-functioning feet have disappeared.
In any case, I’m glad the insoles solved your problems. I just wish the field of podiatry did a better job of root cause analysis.
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, branches and rocks everywhere... you wind up putting a ton of stress on your feet, far more than you do walking around a house barefoot.
I think it’s far more likely that a) modern life causes children not to develop strong feet from an early age, or b) that evolutionary pressures for well-functioning feet have disappeared.
In any case, I’m glad the insoles solved your problems. I just wish the field of podiatry did a better job of root cause analysis.
I think it's as much to do with the flatness as it is the sheer hardness. If interior floors were cobbled and at angles, our feet would be required to work a lot more and our stance would change to fit. We'd also probably wear thinner and more flexibly-soled shoes.
As it is, a constant flat hardess, coupled with shoes, only serves to constrain the foot and work singular positions.
I know if I'm on foot standing all day in the workshop (concrete floor) my feet hurt a lot more than if I'm out walking on the street for the same sort of duration.
As it is, a constant flat hardess, coupled with shoes, only serves to constrain the foot and work singular positions.
I know if I'm on foot standing all day in the workshop (concrete floor) my feet hurt a lot more than if I'm out walking on the street for the same sort of duration.
I think you nailed it that we don't put stresses on our feet and ankles and so those particular muscles don't grow. This of course leads to challenges in running, etc.
I bought these balloon pods for standing on [1]. They create an unstable surface which your feet and ankle muscles must overcome. Its incredibly challenging. Adding in exercises like squats or med ball twists really make you work. You can feel the muscles in your feet and ankles working!
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Yes4All-Balance-Pods-Hedgehog-Hand/dp...
I wish more doctors did more root cause in most fields.
I bought these balloon pods for standing on [1]. They create an unstable surface which your feet and ankle muscles must overcome. Its incredibly challenging. Adding in exercises like squats or med ball twists really make you work. You can feel the muscles in your feet and ankles working!
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Yes4All-Balance-Pods-Hedgehog-Hand/dp...
I wish more doctors did more root cause in most fields.
I think the biggest problem is people running with a heel-first contact to the ground because thick shoes make that feel comfortable and effortless despite the human foot and legs never having evolved to take such hard impacts. Take off someone's shoes and tell them to run on any surface and 9/10 will automatically start running on their toes to reduce foot and leg impact. Heel striking bare foot is not pleasant. The only problem is if someone never runs on their toes and suddenly do run on their toes because they get told it is better, they will quickly tire their feet and calves out and assume the person was full of shit because they ran far longer and easier heel striking because that is what they are use to and built up endurance to do.
You can often tell if someone exclusively heel strikes and doesn't stand or walk or run on their toes at all because they will have super thin calves. You can see it in some people in how they place their foot on bike pedals too, toe runners pedal with their toes, exclusive heel strikers pedal much closer to their heel.
You can often tell if someone exclusively heel strikes and doesn't stand or walk or run on their toes at all because they will have super thin calves. You can see it in some people in how they place their foot on bike pedals too, toe runners pedal with their toes, exclusive heel strikers pedal much closer to their heel.
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
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)
[deleted]
> due to their hardness
My understanding (IANAP) is that the problem is not the hard part, it's the flat part.
My understanding (IANAP) is that the problem is not the hard part, it's the flat part.
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.
The proper shoe shouldn't reinforce bad running habits. If you got pushed that way by a one-on-one shoe fitting, you certainly did get "conned."
As someone who has had only one professional running shoe fitting in my life, I found it invaluable. They were able to immediately identify where my stride was going wrong. They advised me not just on the shoe, but on improving my gait. I bought one full-price shoe once, then was able to buy similar shoes on sale/clearance. Following the fitting (and guidance), I've not had the same knee pain since.
YMMV, but it's not all cons. It's a middle-ground between nothing and a full-fledged sports therapy.
As someone who has had only one professional running shoe fitting in my life, I found it invaluable. They were able to immediately identify where my stride was going wrong. They advised me not just on the shoe, but on improving my gait. I bought one full-price shoe once, then was able to buy similar shoes on sale/clearance. Following the fitting (and guidance), I've not had the same knee pain since.
YMMV, but it's not all cons. It's a middle-ground between nothing and a full-fledged sports therapy.
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?
Harder surfaces are actually easier to run on than dirt trails. You get much more of the energy you put down with each footfall back. This is important because your foot is basically a spring and designed to recover some of the energy put into making each step.
Harder surfaces are a mixed bag. Yes you run faster but your feet, ankles and knees take more impact and damage.
Not if you strike with your forefoot. If you are landing on your heels, then yes. Don’t do that.
Human bipedalism evolved in places like the East African Rift Valley which is rocky, hard packed ground and not at all the soft grasses people imagine. If you've ever hiked in Pennsylvania, it's a bit like that.
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.
We have better medical care for sure. I doubt our diet or lifestyle are healthier, other than that.
I'd be interested in reading deeper. Do you have references countering the marketing claims?
One of the best resources in the net. It won’t give clear cut answers but plenty of good starters to make up your own mind: https://fellrnr.com/wiki/The_Science_of_Running_Shoes
[deleted]
I agree with this. Due to youthful stupidity I've probably had at least a dozen severe sprains and so I am now very prone to them (rolling an ankle at least once a year until I made a change). I switched to five fingers, which I acknowledge are full of hype and woo on the marketing side, and have never rolled an ankle since. It's been 13 years or so..
I don't remember where I saw this, but I thought I saw a display that you could step on and it would try to convince you to buy custom designed insoles? It used some kind of pressure sensor that would map your foot or something.
I feel like shoes are kind of like mattresses are marketed the same way - mostly talking about pressure points, that and memory foam.
I feel like shoes are kind of like mattresses are marketed the same way - mostly talking about pressure points, that and memory foam.
[deleted]
I've stuck with one type of running shoe all the way thru running. I just get the new version each time, and when I have changed style or brand I've got injured
A good pod episode on this:
https://peterattiamd.com/irenedavis/
https://peterattiamd.com/irenedavis/
There's a good history of them in Plucked: A History of Hair Removal. https://books.google.com/books?id=LZvsCwAAQBAJ&printsec=fron...