Talk:X-ray/Archive 2

Talk about Talk
Sorry, as I usually read everything, I've come upon a probable grammar flaw in what I thought is a template: «This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follows the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.»	Nah, I thought it a template, but my attempts to find some "OnThisDay" with Advanced search have failed (or looked like). So — where to find that for editing? Lincoln Josh (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The template is WPMED, but you should probably suggest changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine before editing it.&mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  13:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's just grammar: "recommends that.. follows.. and use.. sources" — the second verb's form. Lincoln Josh (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but the template is heavily used, so one should discuss that with the medicine community. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  13:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Notified and done. And notified:) Psst, what is the prefix for "Wikipedia_talk" pages? :) Lincoln Josh (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You can use "Wikipedia talk:" or it's alias "WT:", with underscore or space and with any capitalization you like. I picked the most readable one which is also trivial to copy and paste together with the page name. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Table of x-ray wavelengths
In a no doubt good faith [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&oldid=543645872 edit of 12 March 2013], User:Ulflund replaced the table of x-ray wavelengths I originally introduced [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&oldid=21771696 back in 2005] with a new version that deletes more than 75% of the original information, replacing it with a few different (claimed more common – POV?) elements and a simple duplication (through E = hf) of the wavelengths re-expressed as energies, while halving the precision of the stated values. Although new references have been given, at least one of the wavelength entries appears to be both in disagreement with those references and in error (the Cu K-alpha1 wavelength is mistakenly listed as 0.157 nm when it should be 0.154 nm).

I am loath to undo the work of another Wikipedian, and disinclined to correct the introduced errors, although I invite User:Ulflund to do so. In the meantime, I have saved a link to the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&oldid=542767988 previous version] of the table for my own use, which others may also prefer. scwimbush (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I feel that I have made the table fit the context better in several ways. The table is in the section about X-ray tubes and should therefore be related to this.
 * I don't claim that the new materials are more common, just more commonly used as anode material in X-ray sources. Tungsten is the most widely used anode material in medical x-ray imaging, with molybdenum used when softer x-rays are desired as in mamography. In chrystalography cupper is the most widely used, but silver is also used when higher resolution is required. In addition to these four elements I also include gallium and indium since these are the ones used in Liquid metal jet x-ray tubes that are becoming more and more popular both for imaging and chrystalography.
 * I reduced the precision to three digits, because more than this is not useful when comparing anode materials.
 * The peaks are given both in keV and nm since both values are useful. In imaging the energies are used most frequently and in chrystallography the wavelength is more usefull.
 * I thought I checked all values very carefully, but I will go through them again to make sure they are all correct.
 * I think your table might fit better in the X-ray spectroscopy article where the precision is more important and your choice of materials makes more sense.

Ulflund (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Challenge to lede
introduced a (quite hidden) challenge to the last paragraph of the lede:

I don't see how this is in conflict with any statement made by the article: the article says that X-rays and gamma rays often are separated by their origin, it doesn't say that this is always possible or that the origin is always known. The article further states that the two ways of separation, by origin and by wavelength, usually coincide. It doesn't say that they are always the same, and not even that they are always both well-defined.

So what exactly is the claim you want to challenge, and where does the source you added contradict the article? &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Challenge to lede"
 * Challenge to what? Where contradicts? It seemingly asserts that gamma-rays are produced [only] by nuclei — at least I tend to understand that in this way. O'k, maybe it doesn't contradict and the NASA article's mention was not comprehensive: I mean if an electron can't produce a ray without striking a nucleus (or proton) — this way a nucleus is still involved.. However, I'd prefer any expressions being ambiguous to be watched and purified. Lincoln Josh (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You're challenging a statement in the lede, the unnamed first section of the article. It's a very subtle way of challenging though, hidden away in a html comment. The NASA article doesn't say that gamma rays can generally only be created when a nucleus is involved. It says that in this case the process was a proton–proton collision creating a pion, which then decays into two gamma photons. That's not really the same as emitted by the atomic nucleus. And even if it was, then we would have yet another example confirming that these definitions usually coincide, still no contradiction. I don't get which expression you find ambiguous, and how it should be watched and purified. &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  19:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As one of the many people who have contributed to the lede statement in its current form, I find your challenge somewhat frustrating. People have been arguing this point in Wikipedia at least since 2007 (See Talk:X-ray). It is extremely difficult to put together a brief summary statement that simultaneously satisfies (1) those who would classify X-rays versus gamma rays according to source, as well as (2) those who would classify X-rays versus gamma rays according to frequency/wavelength. Since it is a brief summary statement, it necessarily leaves out a lot of detail, special cases, exceptions, what have you. Although you may be somewhat unhappy with the lede statement, it is nevertheless the best that we have managed to come up with so far. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As an other of those people who have contributed to the challenged statement I totaly agree with Stigmatella. There are two ways of clasifying the rays and that is what the lede says. I am removing the hidden challenge now. Ulflund (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you, guys, but, being a linguist, I saw in that statement as if there's only one way for gamma-rays to emerge and it's with the help of a nucleus. However, as I'm not a physicist (proper), I admit the NASA article (and video) may leave room for understanding the process as necessarily involving a nucleus (a proton as well as it can be seen as a hydrogen nucleus). The only thing left to draw your attention is that here in the lede, gamma-rays', say, 'description', well, ignores electrons entirely — re-read it yourself. Lincoln Josh (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, the NASA article says these gamma rays are emitted by a decaying pion, not an atomic nucleus. Again, the NASA article talks about one particular observation and says nothing about the production of gamma rays in other situations. I'm not sure I get your last sentence: this article is about X-rays, do you really suggest it should list all possible sources of a different kind of radiation, and that in the lede?
 * Re: the others: I think that paragraph is exceptionally well phrased. Appropriately describing a concept like this, where qualitatively different and quantitatively fuzzy definitions are commonly used, is very difficult, and this is well done! &mdash;&thinsp; H HHIPPO  20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again. May an X-ray be produced involving an electron as an option? Now, there were no mentioning of electron there at all, classifying "the types" of Xrays as if electrons weren't allowed in the process at all. No? Lincoln Josh (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just want to say as one of the people who originally stirred up this fight in 2007 by adding mention of the two conflicting definitions, I've followed the debate ever since, and I think the current statement is excellent.  It mentions there are different definitions while keeping this not-very-important issue in perspective.  Kudos to whoever came up with it.  I very much hope people can live with it, so everyone can quit this silly argument about names and get on to more important things. -- Chetvorno TALK 09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lede - Expanded last paragraph...
Hi. I think the lede must contain some info on the overlap between the terms x-ray and gamma ray, which it does. I have expanded it, but suspect I have overemphasized it - most general readers may not care about this detail. I didn't see any obvious way to cut it down and still keep it comprehensible but please consider shortening it and then expanding in a subsection. For the record, here are some processes which create x-rays: scotch tape pulled off of a metal surface, asteroid impact, linear accelerator, particle-antiparticle annihilation (arguable). I avoid the parallel topic of distinguishing between Ultra short UV and soft X-rays...Abitslow (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fictional characters with x-ray vision
This proposed category would include most notably Superman, but also one of the first super heroines, Olga Mesmer and the mythological Chinese physician Bian Que CensoredScribe (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't see the relevance here -- maybe on talk:X-ray vision? Vsmith (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, it is very hard for CensoredScribe to understand the difference between mythological and fictional, as he continues to treat them as synonyms.--Atlan (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've previously insisted mythology fiction and non fiction be considered 3 separate categories for every topic, however mythological characters are often listed with fictional not historical figures. I forget what category mythological figures were considered fictional in. They really should be 3 separate categories however given the unique space between fact and fiction religion exists in. I did not know X-ray vision had it's own page. CensoredScribe (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Incongruent Fact: 5 billion studies in 2010 or up to 2010?
In the 'X-ray' wiki:

"In 2010, 5 billion medical imaging studies were done worldwide."

On the 'Medical imaging' wiki:

"Up until 2010, 5 billion medical imaging studies had been conducted worldwide."

So were 5 billion studies done in 2010, or have 5 billion studies been done from the first one decades ago up to the year 2010?

I've edited nothing, since I am not a scholar. I'm simply pointing out misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.242.205 (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The reference says "Of the 5 billion imaging investigations performed worldwide..." so I changed the statement in this article to be "up until 2010". Well noted. Ulflund (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fleischmann
Maybe Elizabeth Fleischmann (or Elizabeth Ascheim) deserves to be mentioned in this article? I found a very interesting link about her here, which says: Considering the great medical impact of Fleischmann's pioneering work as an X-ray photographer, and her apparent exclusivity as California's only professional X-ray photographer at an early time, it is hard to understand why she has been so forgotten in the literature of today. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The link seems to have died, so I haven't read anything about her. The fact that she has been "forgotten in the literature" and that she doesn't have a wikipedia page indicates that she might not have had such a great impact, but as I said, I do not know anything about her. If the impact really was that great she deserves to be mentioned either here or on the radiography page. Ulflund (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see a page covering her here. It should be noted that, after Röntgen's discovery that X-rays could be used to create radiographs, everyone with a Crookes tube was making them. So she would need to be in a reliable source on the history of x-rays, we are looking at thousands of people. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Visibility
I have some material I'd like to add to the Visibility section, but thought I'd put it here first. This material is referenced entirely to primary sources, as I could not find any reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should, of course, be used with care, especially avoiding OR, POV, UNDUE, etc. I feel I have followed these guidelines. Here is the material I would like to add:


 * Experiments ended after 1906, possibly due to increased awareness of the dangers of x-rays. In 1932 research was resumed with the work of Taft and Pirne. From 1932 to 1955 an average of about two studies per year were published on the visibility of x-rays, gamma rays, and high-energy particle radiation. In 1955 the British Journal of Ophthalmology published a 22-page review by Leo Lipetz of the previous 60 years of research entitled The X-Ray and Radium Phosphenes listing approximately 90 published sources.


 * Since 1955 there has been ongoing research.

I have additional references that could be used to expand the section at some point in the future, possibly with an eye to spinning it off as a separate article. 1896 1896 1897 1897 1897 1899 1902 1903 1929 1933 1933 1934 1945 1947 1950 1954 1957 1959 1961 1962 1962 1962 1964 1965 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1978 1980 1980 1990 1993 1993 1996 2006 2008 2011 2014 These are just the ones for which I currently have urls. There are more which I'm still tracking down. For example, Bruno Belluci's 1947 study in which the voltage and current on the x-ray machine were systematically varied to determine what effect this would have on perceived color and brightness. Voltage ranged for 50-180 keV, while current ranged from 4 to 80 mA. With increased voltage (corresponding to a reduction in wavelength) brightness increased but color remained unchanged. An increase in current (corresponding to an increase in the number of photons per second) caused color to shift from blue to yellow, with yellow-green at median values. Unfortunately this was published in a journal that I haven't been able to locate, La Radiologia medica, ISSN: 0033-8362, vol. 33, starting on page 141, published by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology in Torino, Italy. It was reprinted in 1951 in Giornale italiano di oftalmologia, vol. 4, starting on page 249, under the title, A proposito della eccitazione da parte dei raggi Roentgen but I haven't been able to locate that one either.

Zyxwv99 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Neupert effect merge discussion
I propose that Neupert effect be merged into X-ray. The minimal content in the Neupert effect article can easily be included in the History section. GremlinSA 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Neupert effect is a entire phenomenon of its own, there's no reason to merge it into X-rays in general. Additionally, the minimal content is due to its specificity (another reason it shouldn't be in a general x-ray page), and my personal lack of knowledge on the subject (I created the page).  Besides the article being small, is there a particular reason you think it should be merged @Gremlinsa?   Zhermes (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to merge. Ulflund (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wanted to get all my ducks in a row before responding.. so before I give reasons, here are a few of the questions that I tried to answer while reviewing the page.. 1) How likely is the article going to expand beyond the 4 sentences? 2) What other subjects/articles (Qty) are likely to link into this one? 3) What other subjects could be associated to this one (what else is Werner Neupert notable for)? 4) how many other references are there available (appart from what is already listed?..
 * my tentative answers were: 1)Probably not more than 2 para's. 2)Possibly only a small mention in Microwave article. 3)Could not find much of anything very closely related (Werner was studying solar flares), however solar physics and spectroscopy could get mention. 4) I found one or two more references that had much the same info as in current refs..
 * This gives issue to in time, how will this stand up, in essence the article is an Orphan page, Low on the searchablity scale (who's gona search for this on a wiki), and has a good chance of been lost in the system at some point in the future. How ever the info given has some Value, and might serve better as a mention with in it's primary. X-Rays. I also looked at, Compton scattering and Rayleigh scattering, which are also physicist named observations of effects. These both have sturdy articles, full details, Healthy ref's, Standalone articles on the named physicist, and also a reasonable mention on the X-ray article. something else that these two have is that they relate to other subjects over and above X-ray ie, Sunlight, Gamma ray, Ultraviolet, etc.. There is very slim chance of them ever been removed.. The proposed merge would ensure that the info never lands up on the AFD list, the redirect would take care of the 'Search', and the page history ensures that even the redirect does not get deleted.
 * And after all that if the section does grow to encompass enough to warrant a stand alone article, the page is already available, and has by then possibly gained a few vital inbound links. GremlinSA 11:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is such a pointless and uninformed merge suggestion... None the less, in response to the above:
 * 1) There is plenty more information to add if it is desired. If people are interested in the article, they will add it.
 * 2) Stars, astronomical correlations, xrays, microwave, flares, solar activity/observations, etc etc. Not to mention that it just isn't that important how many articles link to this one --- it will readily come up on a google search, and there are few (if any) alternative, good sources online.
 * 3) See (2), also, irrelevant.
 * 4) There are numerous related phenomenon, papers that reference this phenomenon, related studies, etc. Again, this is not even relevant.  ::::: Most importantly, if someone is interested in the Neupert Effect and does a search for it - they will find this page, and it will be helpful.  It is completely inappropriate to be merged with Xray in general because it is far too specific.  There's *no* reason to clutter an already large article (xray) which is perfectly sufficient as it is, with a relatively niche observational phenomenon like the Neupert effect which would not be interesting to the casual xray reader.  @Gremlinsa, this is not the first completely superfluous merge suggestion you've made.  Please consider carefully **why** it is a good reason to merge, instead of just leaving it. Zhermes (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know the policies for AFD, but if I where looking for info about the Neupert effect a wikipedia article, even if just a paragraph with references, would be convenient. A paragraph in a longer article would also be ok, but in that case I think X-ray astronomy is the place. Ulflund (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * AFD policy is relatively simple... Anyone can nominate a page for deletion for any reason, and consensus of the day/week decides if it gets deleted. Having nominated and defended several, it's often hard to say which way the dice will fall.. Personally i think this info has value and should be kept, but others might not see what i do.. so lets save it in one way or another... GremlinSA 09:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2015
94.246.179.17 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Name change
The term 'x-ray' is anachronistic. The currently used term in medical literature is radiograph. This is supported by searching through the NIH database for articles about radiographs, or in current medical textbooks. I propose a name change to 'radiograph'. I would be happy to provide supporting evidence. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is about the X-ray portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. It is not restricted to medical uses. It includes a section on radiographs under medical uses with a link to the radiography article. The article is appropriately named. Vsmith (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. Plumpy Humperdinkle (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123034228/http://emedicinelive.com:80/index.php/Women-s-Health/pregnant-women-and-radiation-exposure.html to http://emedicinelive.com/index.php/Women-s-Health/pregnant-women-and-radiation-exposure.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2015
Duplicative History section with major issues in the grammar and spelling of the history section was added 28 November. Presents no new information -- should be undone.

0932C (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by Fountains of Bryn Mawr https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-ray&type=revision&diff=692890212&oldid=692858786 Cannolis (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016
The table in "production of x-rays" section has an error.

The last entry in the last column, currently 0.455, should be 0.0455.

Guyp001 (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source given for the table says 0.455 as seen here. Further, page 10 of this citation says the eV for K_sub_beta1 is 27275.9. Using this calculator, that converts to 0.455 angstroms.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2016
I suggest you to consider adding a new line in the list dedicated to "External links" that could read... X-rays and crystals (the text being linked to http://www.xtal.iqfr.csic.es/Cristalografia/index-en.html) Thanks, Martin

Xmartin-madrid (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done T e r r a  ❤ 06:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 one external links on X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110922122151/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947420292 to http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947420292
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131120115753/http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html to http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070404222105/http://www.dentalgentlecare.com:80/x-ray_safety.htm to http://www.dentalgentlecare.com/x-ray_safety.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120427175013/http://www.oakridge.doe.gov:80/external/PublicActivities/EmergencyPublicInformation/AboutRadiation/tabid/319/Default.aspx to http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/external/PublicActivities/EmergencyPublicInformation/AboutRadiation/tabid/319/Default.aspx
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120928204852/http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120928204852/http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray to http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/xray
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081114111144/http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Experiments/MaterialsScience/faisceau to http://www.esrf.eu/UsersAndScience/Experiments/MaterialsScience/faisceau
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070810063814/http://www.iuk.edu/~koalhe/img/Equipment/xray.jpg to http://www.iuk.edu/~koalhe/img/Equipment/xray.jpg
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100729022133/http://rad.usuhs.mil:80/rad/home/whatis.html to http://rad.usuhs.mil/rad/home/whatis.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100306044636/http://rad.usuhs.edu:80/medpix/ to http://rad.usuhs.edu/medpix

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Stretching it?
"This criterion assigns a photon to an unambiguous category, but is only possible if wavelength is known. (Some measurement techniques do not distinguish between detected wavelengths.)"

Wavelength is the most fundamental property of electromagnetic radiation. It's something you assume is known. These two sentences seem to be inventing a fake reason -- unknown elsewhere in the spectrum -- for the x-ray/gamma ray ambiguity. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Adverse effects
Shouldn't we mention in the article that a protein found in Tardigrades may help human DNA to withstand radiation ? See here KVDP (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory text in "Early research"
"Eugen Goldstein proved that they came ... and named them ...." refers to the antecedent X-rays from the immediately preceding text, but then names cathode rays instead. I can't correct the contradiction myself without the resources to know just what he proved and what he named.--William Mestman (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122024930/http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/11_xrays.html to http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/11_xrays.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

etymology
Roentgen named it X-radiation to signify an "unknown" type of radiation ... "xeno" in greek means strange, so it can be called as Xeno-ray, so xenography, xenoscopy etc. Tabascofernandez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on X-ray. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212054732/http://adg.llnl.gov/Research/scattering/RTAB.html to http://adg.llnl.gov/Research/scattering/RTAB.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912031712/http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-F.pdf to http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_9-F.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070315211141/http://www.doctorspiller.com/Dental%20_X-Rays.htm to http://www.doctorspiller.com/Dental%20_X-Rays.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Solar battery for measuring of intensity X-rays.
В этой "Укопытии" и кони не валялись ..

176.59.207.144 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

An x-ray
Since x-ray begins with the sound, a vowel sound, the correct indefinite pronoun is an. Opalzukor (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Replacing the lede image
It is a mistake to replace the image of the range of X-rays which has been the image in the lede for years now, with an image of a medical X-ray. This is because if you have the article "X-ray" and have the top image be "a [medical] X-ray", readers will be given the false impression that the article is about medical X-rays. It is not; the article is about X-rays in general. Therefore the only appropriate image is one which shows as broad a range of "what an X-ray is". it doesn't help that the image you are trying to push as the lede image--one which is supposed to represent X-rays as a whole--is an image which you yourself uploaded less than a month ago. Then, going out of your way to say that is engaging in an edit war...when you're trying to overturn a years-long consensus with your own image. No, I refuse. I'm putting back the image. BirdValiant (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi ! There are many reasons why you are wrong - not the least of which is that the graphic without the accompanying explanation is completely incomprehensible to most readers - but I just don't care enough to try and convince you. Have fun! --Ptrump16 (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

X-ray image edit war
I have systematically replaced images on various pages with high quality, high resolution images. One particular focus has been to include appropriate generic images in articles that have a broad focus (i.e.: X-ray, Medical Imaging, etc.). These radiographic images should be clear, high quality and show anatomy a laymen can relate to (i.e.: hand, head, lungs, etc.). This image was replaced with this image

The reason for this replacement was the image User:Sudraben appears to be a photograph of a film which is poorly exposed. Must better options exist. User:Sudraben has entered into an edit war over this change as it is his image that is being replaced. I do not care which image replaces it so long as it is high quality and high resolution. --Ptrump16 (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Ptrump16, I just reviewed the x-ray page and I finally decide to agree with your suggestion about replacing the x-ray image with a higher resolution but I was surprised when I found that you said we are doing imagewar on that page which I just change it one time. I think this is a misunderstanding, I hope you don't mind deleting this page because this is an unpleasant accusation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:X-ray#X-ray_image_edit_war Sudraben (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sure, do whatever you feel is best. In fact, I don't really care that much either way. Have fun! --Ptrump16 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Health risks
According to http://www.pnas.org/content/100/9/5057.full.pdf x-rays produce 35 double strand breaks (DSB) in the DNA per cell per gray. This means e.g. if someone who would have a brain CT with 100mGy exposure, then 3.5 additional DSB/cell would be added. According to that article, 20% of skin cells exposed to 200mGy suffer 7 DSB per cell, and can't function any more, and die. I read that nerve cells are supposed to be more resistant to radiation, but didn't find any research supporting that. So perhaps, if someone does a brain CT, he is saying goodbye to 20% of his brain. According to http://www.pnas.org/content/92/26/12050.long 25% of DSB are not repaired well.
 * Cranial CT scans never exceed dosages of more than a few mGys. 100-200 mGy would be far more than necessary. The first paper you cited acknowledges this: "It should be noted that doses in the order of 1–10 mGy are typically delivered with diagnostic x-ray exposures and represent the range of doses received by individuals per year due to environmental background radiation." The amount of radiation used to perform a standard cranial CT scan is nowhere near powerful enough to damage 20% of the brain. If that were the case, given the ubiquity of X-ray scans in modern medicine, huge numbers of people would be suffering from brain damage after undergoing the procedure.


 * Those papers are certainly legitimate studies, and refer to the damaging effect that X-rays can have on DNA. However, there's a big difference between minor DNA damage at low doses of radiation and serious organ damage at high doses of radiation. 2A00:23C7:99A4:5001:93:8BE9:DA1A:255D (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)