This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
In a no doubt good faith edit of 12 March 2013, User:Ulflund replaced the table of x-ray wavelengths I originally introduced 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 previous version of the table for my own use, which others may also prefer. scwimbush ( talk) 05:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ulflund ( talk) 07:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit introduced a (quite hidden) challenge to the last paragraph of the lede: <!-- The ref and claim is challenged: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011200/a011209/ "Scientists have been unable to ascertain which particle is responsible for this emission because cosmic-ray protons and electrons give rise to gamma rays with similar energies." (par.5). -->
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? — HHHIPPO 14:34, 17 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
References
x rays act on the rod's photosensitive molecule, rhodopsin
{{
citation}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Zyxwv99 ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
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 . Gremlin SA 11:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
X-ray has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
94.246.179.17 ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
X-ray. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
X-ray has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
X-ray has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This
edit request to
X-ray has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
"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)
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)
"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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
В этой "Укопытии" и кони не валялись ..
176.59.207.144 ( talk) 11:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Since x-ray begins with the sound ɛ, a vowel sound, the correct indefinite pronoun is an. Opalzukor ( talk) 07:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
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". @ Ptrump16: 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 @ Sudraben: 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)
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:
/info/en/?search=Talk:X-ray#X-ray_image_edit_war
Sudraben (
talk) 14:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
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.