From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
WikiProject Medicine / Radiology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Radiology task force.
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

name of picture file seems to contain patient name[edit]

hi the name of the file of the "female chest x-ray" seems to contain the patient name. That's terrible (and illegal presumably). I don't know how to change that though.

thanks Krthie (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this person gave her permission for her name to be used and thus it is neither terrible nor illegal. BTW if you do wish to change the image discussion for that would take place on Wikimedia Commons. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ivan Pulyui - lead[edit]

I removed the sentence about Ivan Pulyui from the lead. Of course he was among the first ones who worked with X-rays, but he did not discovered them before Röntgen. He worked indeed with Cathode rays before Röntgen's discovery of the X-rays, but thats a difference. He built a device, called Pulyui lamp, which was was (accidently) some kind of primitive X-ray tube (which he didnt recognized), but it was not until Rönten published his works, that he discovered the potential of it. This is also that what the source is saying. There is some more information about that on the German wikipedia. There is also no "recently uncovered archival evidence ", claims that he was first came already from the sixties, but there was never any real evidence. Pulyui himself acknowledged Röntgen as the discoverer and never challenged that. So still it was Röntgen who discovered X-rays first, thats why i removed the part about Pulyui from the lead per undue weight (he still has his part in the article). StoneProphet (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

new book to add[edit]

Albert Einstein didn’t prove that the photon exists. He did theorize the quantum effect and received the Nobel Prize in 1921 for the photoelectric effect. Arthur Compton did the experiment to prove that the photon exists in 1923. In 1927 is when he received the Nobel Prize for proving the existence of the photon. Read the Nobel Prize paper in which Arthur Compton mentions for the first time the photon as a particle and the experiment that proves it. The book X-rays and electrons An outline of recent X-ray theory By Arthur H. Compton Ph. D. Copyright 1926 By D. Van Nostrand Company This book includes papers from 1923 on and uses the word photoelectrons for the one particle and electrons for the other. He shortened the word photoelectrons to photon by eliminating electro. The new particles thus became the photons from a shortening of photoelectrons. Read the book. The term’s used for electrons from the many papers are: • photoelectrons • recoil electrons • beta rays The term’s used for photons from the many papers are: • x-rays • x-ray quantum • light • light darts • electromagnetic waves • radiation • radiation quanta • radiation quantum • quantum He used photoelectrons a lot for the electrons but for the photons there was no common term. (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

kV as unit for photon energy?[edit]

In the section Sources after the short description of Bremsstrahlung there is the sentence:

The voltages used in diagnostic X-ray tubes, and thus the highest energies of the X-rays, range from roughly 20 to 150 kV.

Well, I'm not a nativ speaker, but this sounds to me, like the highest energies of the X-ray is a voltage. And as far as I know, the energy of the X-rays is the total of the energies of the photons in it. So if I'm right, here should be written something like:

The voltages used in diagnostic X-ray tubes range from roughly 20 to 150 kV and thus the highest energies of the X-ray photons range from roughly 20 to 150 keV. (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone may wish to correct this information as x rays are regularly generated at up to 300keV for the purposes of radiography, a quick check on Andrex Smart or Phillips x ray sets can easily confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the keV thing, but couldn't find a x-ray source for medical imaging with higher voltage than 150 kV. can you give a reference or a model number for a source with higher voltage? Ulflund (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing sources of x-rays[edit]

I feel that the Sources of x-rays section should include some mention of the other sources. Natural and man made. Cosmic, solar perhaps others deserve mention. Synchroton radiation is mentioned later but not in the Source section. Not sure where the cold thermal generators fit in but they have also been left out. [Cool-X] Idyllic press (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Moon in x-rays.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:Moon in x-rays.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Relative hazard of X-rays to infants[edit]

The "Health risks" section at the end has this statement:

"Fathers exposed to diagnostic X-rays are more likely to have infants who contract leukemia, especially if exposure is closer to conception or includes two or more X-rays of the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract or lower abdomen."

My question is- how much more likely? Not being a stats-dude I can't edit this with any confidence. Can someone with some knowledge in the area add a modifying word such as "marginally", "slightly", "significantly", "OMG this is so bad" etc? Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


Anyone else ever encounter this term? (Unless it's a typo), I suspect that it was coined as a synonym for "soft X-ray". The cite:

Margolis, Art (1969). "Chapter 1: Getting the Jump on Repairs". In Bowers, Frank. The Practical Handbook of TV Repairs. Practical Workshop Library. Rockville, Maryland: Fawcett Publications. p. 15. ISBN 0668020571. OCLC 53350. Safety First…X-Rays: While most of the rumors about X-Rays emanating from color TV sets are exaggerated there is the possibility of some S-Ray activity taking place. If it is, the danger spots are around the high voltage regulator tube, the high voltage rectifier tube and the face of the picture tube. 

We read elsewhere in the book that, at the time, black and white TV high voltage was up to 20KV, and color TV was up to 26KV. So that tells you the upper end of the energies involved. AHMartin (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

health risks[edit]

According to 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 25% of DSB are not repaired well.

X-ray tube energy limit[edit]

In an x-ray tube, the voltage on the anode times the charge on the electron yields the energy with which each electron strikes the anode, 80 electron volts for an eighty volt x-ray tube. The energy of each electron is the upper limit of the x-ray energy that the tube can emit. This elementary fact was properly explained with correct abbreviations until the edit which I will now revert. Fartherred (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

X-rays are not defined by their energy ![edit]

Note: The portions of this thread which date before 2011 have been moved to the 2007 – 2010 archive Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Cosmic rays are considered to be photons of cosmic origin" - No, cosmic rays are not photons; they're matter such as protons and electrons. See this NASA webpage.Gsparky (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a gamma-ray spectroscopist. If you look at usage in my field: (1) the distinction between x-rays and gammas is fuzzy, not sharp; (2) energy is one criterion; (3) the source may in some cases be another criterion, but if so is much less important than the energy. When a nucleus emits a 30 keV photon, we call it an x-ray, not a gamma. The only evidence I can think of for using the source as a criterion is that we do habitually refer to "K-shell x-rays," never to "K-shell gamma rays," even in cases like uranium, where the energy of 85 keV puts it near the fuzzy boundary between x-rays and gammas. The radiation oncologist may or may not be describing the best usage in his/her own field , but this is certainly not considered correct usage among physicists. Absolutely nobody in physics would ever refer to a 2 MeV photon as an x-ray.-- (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? It seems to me the article is compatible with your point of view; it defines x-rays with an energy range, but says in the fuzzy boundary between x-rays and gammas the rays are often classified according to their origin. The existing explanation is well sourced. --ChetvornoTALK 01:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
"Do you have a source for this?" Yes, the sources given at the end of the final paragraph of the lead are fine; they simply don't support the highly distorted picture presented in that paragraph. The definitions are fuzzy, and are based on two different criteria. Any good source will give both criteria. But the final paragraph of the lead is total nonsense. It gets the historical situation completely backwards. Historically, the terms x-ray and gamma originated as arbitrary labels for phenomena whose origins were unknown. Nobody knew that they were both forms of electromagnetic radiation. What was known was that their sources were different. As time went on, it became clear that distinguishing them by wavelength was more reasonable, since they were otherwise identical. The sources do not support the claim they are being used to support. For example, page 2-5 of vol I of the Feynman lectures gives a correct explanation of the historical, practical, and physical distinction -- which bears no resemblance to the description given in the sentence that cites it.-- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

I've added an expert-subject template to the article. The issue here is the distinction between x-rays and gamma-rays. The problems are as follows: (1) The lead overemphasizes the properties of the source as a defining characteristic and underemphasizes the wavelength. (2) The lead garbles and reverses the historical sequence. (3) The lead fails to explain that the use of the source as the distinguishing characteristic is purely historical, dating to a period when it was not known that x-rays and gamma rays were both forms of electromagnetic radiation. (4) The sources 5, 7, 8, and 9 do not support the garbled and distorted picture presented in the lead.-- (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph discussing (paragraph 3) the distinction between X-rays and gamma rays to better reflect the references and this talk page. It previously stated that the distinction based on the origin was historical although the four references did not call the definition historical and they where all newer than the single reference for a distinction based on photon energy.
Most editors (but not all) in this discussion (including the archived parts Talk:X-ray/Archive_1#X-rays_are_not_defined_by_their_energy_.21) seems to agree with me and most of the references in the article that the common distinction uses the source of the radiation. Ulflund (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a divisive issue. Those arguing for a source-dependent distinction between x-rays and gamma rays (i.e. x-rays result from Bremsstrahlung, synchroton radiation, and K-shell emission, while gamma rays result from nuclear processes) neglect the fact that gamma rays may be produced by processes such as Compton scattering (for instance in the accretion disks of black holes), Bremsstrahlung, and synchrotron radiation (for instance gamma ray bursts, lightning strikes, etc.) which are not nuclear processes, while nuclear processes can emit photons in the x-ray range. So it is best to mention that alternate methods exist for distinguishing between the two types of radiation without attempting to favor one classification scheme over the other. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that there are complications with definition based on the origin of the photons, but still think that is the most common. That is the definition used in X-ray physics and medical imaging courses I have taken and the one used by four out of five references in this article. Since I do not have any statistics on the number of fields using each definition I am content with your modification. Ulflund (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Röntgen USUALLY credited as its discoverer ?[edit]

quote "Wilhelm Röntgen,[1] who is usually credited as its discoverer"

is it me (i'm not a native speaker of English) or does it imply that sometimes others get credited for the discovery (and if so who?)? or is it disputed that Rontgen discovered the x-rays ? (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"he was the first to systematically study them" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The "History" section has a good description. Before Rontgen wrote his 1895 paper, a few researchers such as Pulyui and Hittorf had observed that something coming from Crookes tubes could make dark marks on covered photographic plates. However Rontgen was first to research them, so he should get credit as discoverer. --ChetvornoTALK 15:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvements[edit]

When reading this article I found a few things I think could be improved. I will implement these suggestions when I get time if no one else does it before me or protests here.

  • The first image should focus more on x-rays and less on radio waves.
  • The first section, "Units of measure and exposure", seems totaly out of place. It should be removed or at least moved to the end of the article.
  • A section on x-ray interaction with matter would be a better start. That could contain some information about photo absorption and compton scattering and possibly a graph of the x-ray penetration depth in e.g. water as function of photon energy.
  • The second section, "Human exposure", contains much of the same information as the section "Adverse effects". Maybe these could be merged.
  • The section on sources could maybe give some more space for synchrotrons and maybe even mention XFELs and astronomical x-ray sources.
  • Most of the text in the section "Photographic plate" has nothing to do with photographic plates.
  • The "Detectors" section could separate spatially resolving detectors from "single-pixel" detectors such as Geiger-Müller counters.
  • These detector types deserve to be mentioned: scintillators coupled to CCD or CMOS detectors, photon counting detectors, x-ray spectrometers, and dosimeters.
  • The "other uses" section should maybe also mention Industrial CT scanning, coherent diffraction imaging, scanning x-ray probe microscopy, X-ray phase-contrast imaging, small-angle X-ray scattering, and Ptychography.

Ulflund (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Move X-ray detectors to its own article[edit]

This article is starting to get quite long and the detectors section is in my opinion taking a to large part of it. Why not move this information to a new article named X-ray detectors and leave a summary here instead? Ulflund (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the article's length is only borderline long and it probably doesn't really need splitting, but I've watched you make some really nice additions these past several days, and I presume that you have plans for more. I have some experience splitting articles. There are rules that need to be followed so as to preserve history (see Wikipedia:Splitting), but splitting is otherwise a pretty straightforward process. Give me a day or two before I find time to perform the split. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, boy, there are ISSUES with the move. Within seconds of my creating the new page, a bot flagged the page for copyright violation, indicating that the content was copied from

The entire section on Detectors was then deleted by another editor.

Looking over the page in question, I suspect that may be a plagiarism of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. This needs some investigation.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We had the content here on Wikipedia before they did per and looking at the history. The pictures also come from use and where uploaded by different users as early as 2005. Maybe someone need to bring this to their attention. I will call them tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! You've saved me a lot of research time! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
That was a lot quicker than I had expected, thanks Stigmatella aurantiaca. Yes, my plan is to continue improving the article, and I will probably start by expanding the now very short detectors summary. Ulflund (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about leaving the summary so short, but I had originally expected the split to take no more than ten minutes... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about Talk[edit]

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.— HHHIPPO 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. — HHHIPPO 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. — HHHIPPO 20:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Challenge to lede[edit]

This edit introduced a (quite hidden) challenge to the last paragraph of the lede: <!-- The ref and claim is challenged: "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)

"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. — HHHIPPO 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#X-rays are not defined by their energy !). 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! — HHHIPPO 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 X‑rays 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. --ChetvornoTALK 09:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Table of x-ray wavelengths[edit]

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)

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)

Lede - Expanded last paragraph...[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 (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[edit]

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)


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.[1][2] 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.[2]
Since 1955 there has been ongoing research.[3][4][5]

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.

  1. ^ Pirie, A. H. (1932), "Reading with Eyes Closed", The Canadian Medical Association Journal 39 (10): 488–90, PMC 402589 
  2. ^ a b Lipetz, Leo E. (1955), "The X Ray and Radium Phosphenes", British Journal of Ophthalmology 39 (10): 577–598, PMC 1324596 
  3. ^ Tobias, Cornelius A.; Budinger, Thomas F.; Lyman, John T. (1971), "Radiation-induced Light Flashes observed by Human Subjects in Fast Neutron, X-ray and Positive Pion Beams", Nature 230 (5296): 596–598, doi:10.1038/230596a0 
  4. ^ Doly, Michel; Isabelle, D.B.; Vincent, P.; Gaillard, G.; Meyniel, G. (4/1/1980), "Mechanism of the formation of x-ray-induced phosphenes. I. Electrophysiological investigations", Radiation Research 82 (1): 93–105, ISSN 0033-7587, x rays act on the rod's photosensitive molecule, rhodopsin  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Sannitaa, Walter G.; Naricia, Livio; Picozzaa, Piergiorgio (2006), "Positive visual phenomena in space: A scientific case and a safety issue in space travel", Vision Research 46 (14): 2159–2165, doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.12.002 

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

Neupert effect merge discussion[edit]

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)