[HN Gopher] YouTuber builds his own x-ray machine after $69k hos... ___________________________________________________________________ YouTuber builds his own x-ray machine after $69k hospital bill (2021) Author : ck2 Score : 236 points Date : 2022-03-24 12:52 UTC (10 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.popularmechanics.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.popularmechanics.com) | vilhelm_s wrote: | Steve Yegge tells the story[1] of his dad cooking: | | > When I was a teenager, my dad and my brother Mike decided to | make homemade chili. I'd never seen it made before, and I watched | with keen interest as they added beef, beans, some veggies and | spices, and other ingredients. Dad would taste it, add some more | ingredients, wait a bit, taste it again. My dad has some pretty | good recipes. So you can imagine my puzzlement when he opened the | cupboard, pulled out 2 cans of Hormel chili, opened them and | dumped them in. I waited a respectful moment or two before asking | him why he was adding canned chili to his chili. | | Similarly, I think it detracts a bit from building a home-made | x-ray machine if one of the ingredients is an x-ray tube from an | old x-ray machine. | | [1] http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/10/egomania-itself.html | robocat wrote: | Steve rants against Agile - classic. | | """ I waited a respectful moment or two before asking him why | he was adding canned chili to his chili. They both said it | tasted terrible, but, as my dad now-famously observed: "You can | start with dog shit, and if you add enough chili, you get | chili." | | Similarly, if you start with an Agile Methodology, and you add | enough hard work, you get a bunch of work done. Go figure. | | But that's a tautology; you can substitute anything you like | for "Agile Methodology" and it's still true. It's probably not | difficult to find people who believe that Feng Shui has brought | them success in their projects for years. Or throwing pennies | in fountains. Heck, there are probably some people who practice | witchcraft to help their projects out, and a great many of | those projects -- probably the majority -- wind up being | successful. | | If you do a rain dance for enough days in a row, it will | eventually work. Guaranteed. | | So I'm not saying Agile doesn't work. It does work! But it's | plain, unadulterated superstition. """ | | Off topic, but thanks for the link. | dekhn wrote: | so, I'm a maker, and there's some things that aren't worth | making yourself, but if you integrate them, you're still a | maker. x-ray tubes are an example (in my case, | microcontrollers, stepper motors, and microscope objectives). | | (I have actually built a crookes tube, for fun, but it wasn't | particularly reliable or safe) | odonnellryan wrote: | Are programmers makers? | dekhn wrote: | Computer programmers are makers, but typically work on | digital systems, where making is far, far easier. | robbedpeter wrote: | https://youtu.be/-0G4-JicCIw | | Diy xray tubes are doable, but I don't fault them for the store | chili or the reused tube. It's not always important that parts | be as authentically diy as the whole, in my view. | octagons wrote: | It's worth noting that William Osman stopped producing videos on | his YouTube channel due to the fallout of this video. | | It was a long time coming because he comes off as very aloof and | has received criticism about the safety of many other projects, | but this one appears to have triggered a lot of outrage. | | FWIW, I think we need more young, brilliant minds sharing this | kind of content. It has the entertainment value needed to capture | the interest of young viewers who may not be otherwise interested | in engineering disciplines. There are many, many other channels | out there (backyard scientist, action lab, Cody's lab, stuff made | here, etc.) who are very successful on YouTube, but they tend to | cater to viewers who are deliberately choosing to watch their | videos. | sillysaurusx wrote: | I agree with you. But the safety concerns are real. | | It's his life to risk, but during Edison's days, one of his | assistants lost everything to x-ray damage. His body became | totally deformed. | | Oddly, this Daily Mail article is somehow near the top of the | results. But reading over it, it seems pretty accurate from | what I remember. | https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7180945/X-rays-ra... | | So it's not like the safety concerns are entirely off-base. But | still, I agree that it's his life to risk. | megous wrote: | Just one exposure of the assistant is many orders of | magnitude more exposure than this guy had for the entire | experiment. | | It's not really comparable. | swores wrote: | Might I suggest that even on occasions when the Daily Mail (/ | Mail Online) has accurate content, they still don't deserve | page views or advert impressions and that when not too hard | other links would be better. I'm not sure how the exact | content stacks up, but this Smithsonian Mag link was high in | my search results | https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/clarence-dally-the- | ma... | | Anyway, thanks for the story that I hadn't heard before! | sillysaurusx wrote: | That's an interesting suggestion. May I ask why? I really | don't know anything about it. | | The hesitation I had with sharing a daily mail link was "Is | it accurate?" rather than whether they deserve impressions. | It hadn't occurred to me that it might be a bad idea to | support them. | ftyers wrote: | They're widely (although not universally) considered to | be irredeemable in England after an article they | published in 1934 entitled "Hurrah for the Blackshirts". | RandallBrown wrote: | Safety concerns are real and I believe William Osman manages | them pretty well. | | Here's a "reacts" video where a radiologist agrees he's being | pretty safe and what he's doing isn't that risky (assuming he | knows what he's doing with high voltage.) | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXJs598n3gE | sillysaurusx wrote: | Thanks for this! | 0x_rs wrote: | That video also resulted in him, Osman, setting up a fake job | application interview with one commenter for the sole purpose | of filming and posting it online on his YouTube [0]. Which is, | in my opinion, very petty and immature. It's good that he | stopped making videos for the time being while learning what | most creators online have to deal with and don't take to this | level. | | 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHyFihLolyg | sevenf0ur wrote: | Yeah, that whole video was very cringe-inducing. | rowanG077 wrote: | Thanks for that video. I now have MASSIVE respect for this | dude. I don't think it's immature at all. It was a very fun | way to call out this piece of shit of a person. | neatze wrote: | Why it is immature ? | oh_sigh wrote: | Getting worked up enough about a random internet comment to | go to that length to try to humiliate the person is | immature. Especially with a fraudulent job application. | | Here, let's try something out: Neatze, I think you're a big | ol idiot. | | Now, what is your response going to be? Will you just shake | your head and move on with your life? Or will you try to | e-stalk me, set up a fake job interview for me, just so you | can get a one up on me? | | Probably not, because I bet you're more mature than the | dude in the video. | invisible wrote: | In a somewhat comical sense, it's pretty "mature" to draw | up a contract with someone (a very "professional" thing | to do) to prove a point that someone trolling on your | video has no idea what they're talking about. How else | could he prove the point in any other realistic manner? | | Calling something immature when it's a well thought-out | and explored topic doesn't seem fair. He's touched on how | random internet trolls hurt other YouTubers, not just | him, in other videos (to show this isn't some impulsive | thing). | explaingarlic wrote: | If you make tens of thousands of dollars a month on | YouTube with AdSense, you are effectively a business. And | indeed, many of these YouTubers have setup businesses in | their name that receive the AdSense funds, and pay | themselves a salary out of that. | | A company does not publicly humiliate a customer who | makes a detrimental statement to its products - can you | imagine the devastation from someone who is socially | awkward and receives this kind of backlash for the | horrific crime of speaking slightly out of line? | | Does your employer have a "worst employee of the month" | poster with enumerated examples of all of the fuckups | they made in the last month? That would be a million | times less harmful than a pop-culture hack doing the same | thing to you because you _said_ something out of line. | | People should be free to abuse each other online, call | each other all sorts of stuff and _ESPECIALLY_ lie or | stretch the truth, without facing offline scrutiny or | embarrassment. | dntrkv wrote: | > A company does not publicly humiliate a customer who | makes a detrimental statement to its products | | This happens quite often. | | It's very common to find reviews on Yelp where someone | leaves a less-than-honest review and the company owner | comes in and explains what a piece of shit that person | was and how they aren't telling the whole story. | | If you come into a store and act like a dick towards the | staff, you will almost certainly be publicly humiliated. | | It even happens with larger companies where someone goes | to the media with some BS story, and then the company | issues public statements about how that person is full of | shit. | | I see nothing wrong with what William did. It may be | petty, but who cares. If you don't want to be called out, | don't be a troll. | invisible wrote: | I disagree with your opinion that people should be free | to abuse others online without any scrutiny offline. | Especially when people claim to be experts and assert | authority on subjects. | | Also, what is with creating these fictional scenarios | about an employer punishing a customer or employee? Even | if "he" were a business, he's free to react to criticism | however he chooses. | | My local barber chose to respond to negative reviews by | chastising every single one. They still somehow have | plenty of happy customers. | googlryas wrote: | There's nothing mature about violating contract law. It | feels like fraudulent misrepresentation to me. Key | aspects of fraudulent misrepresentation[0]: | | 1) a representation was made | | 2) the representation was false | | 3) that when made, the defendant knew that the | representation was false or that the defendant made the | statement recklessly without knowledge of its truth | | 4) that the fraudulent misrepresentation was made with | the intention that the plaintiff rely on it | | 5) that the plaintiff did rely on the fraudulent | misrepresentation | | 6) that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the | fraudulent misrepresentation | | [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fraudulent_misreprese | ntation | invisible wrote: | I don't think Will committed fraudulent | misrepresentation, if that could even apply or if this | somehow caused harm. Either way, who said violating | contract law was immature? Only you. Why suggest I did? | What motive do you have here? | 0x_rs wrote: | If you watched the video, I'll have to be the one asking | you -- why do you think looking up somebody from your | comments section, making them sign agreements under a false | pretence and setting up an interview, and then making fun | of this individual talking about how "embarassing" he is in | your videos is not immature? I won't even begin talking | about brigading against somebody when you have a vast user | base. Content creators have some unwritten responsibilities | and such acts are uncommon because they usually do not fall | into these things trying to make "a point". | jaykk wrote: | well, this specific commentor claimed to be an expert on | this topic... | Maursault wrote: | It is irrelevant who said what, only what was said. It is | not possible to validly counter an argument by attacking | the man, which is why ad hominem is a fallacy. The | logical way to have approached this is to ignore the man | and point out the argument from authority, also a | fallacy. | TT-392 wrote: | Pretty sure it was a combination of factors, not just this vid, | and he just needed a break. | octagons wrote: | Yes, I agree it was many factors. This video seemed to be the | breaking point, but it was certainly a long time coming. I | recall several videos over the past 2 or so years where he | drew attention to the invective he receives. I don't really | participate beyond watching the videos, so perhaps there are | others who are more informed about the factors behind his | decision. | | Regardless, I wish him all the best and hope he'll find a way | to showcase his talent or at least find fulfillment | elsewhere. | TT-392 wrote: | As far as I heard listening to the podcast, I am not | convinced he is done making videos. And even if he does end | up stopping, they got a pretty great podcast which he seems | to enjoy. | ballenf wrote: | He does a regular video podcast still on Youtube that has some | pretty cool behind the scenes discussions. And an awesome | title. | | Safety Third: | https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7QE72cxiBkiwnvGoFfqYOg | octagons wrote: | Yes! This is a great podcast if you are a fan of William | Osman, NileRed, Michael Reeves, Peter Sripol, and the like. | mkdirp wrote: | > It's worth noting that William Osman stopped producing videos | on his YouTube channel due to the fallout of this video. | | Was it really because of that video? My impression from his | last video was just people being unnecessarily mean to him for | no reason in general, not just because of that video, but maybe | I missed something. | | Personally, I was super impressed by this video. It was the | first time I had seen his videos (or heard of him). It was an | instant subscribe for me when I saw it. | | I hope he's doing well. He seemed in a really bad place in his | final video. | [deleted] | jaykk wrote: | he's okay and currently does a super nice podcast with other | youtubers like nilred and the backyard scientist called | "safety third". He will release videos sometime soon again - | He talked about his backlog with his releases because he | wanted to release a video about his mr. beast's squidgame | involvement first and didnt find a good angle to tell the | story. | Ruthalas wrote: | I enjoyed his main channel content, but found the first few | episodes of the podcast to be a little rough going because | they had a strong focus on complaining about the people | complaining about their lack of safety measures. (Which | just wasn't interesting listening to me.) | | Have the more recent episodes moved past that? I'd like to | give it another shot. | MivLives wrote: | They have for the most part. It comes up occasionally | now, and for the most part they're still as unfocused as | normal. They rotate in people all the time which is fine. | The last few episodes have been weirdly a lot about Taxes | but the Nilegreen episode was interesting. | mdrzn wrote: | God I miss William. | | I hope he gets better (mentally), and he comes back to making | videos. | bluescrn wrote: | It's strange that doing potentially-dangerous things with | technology is frowned upon so much more than doing | 'conventionally dangerous' stuff like base jumping, huge tricks | on bikes/skateboards/snowboards, free climbing, and so on | warent wrote: | Probably conventionally dangerous stunts happen much more | often than potentially dangerous engineering stuff. By | definition you'll hear more outrage around more densely | outrageous things. If more people did dangerous engineering | stuff then it would be vice versa. | | Also perhaps a dangerous skateboard trick is less likely to | harm anyone else but oneself, whereas an engineering disaster | can catastrophic at a range | atoav wrote: | Skateboarders don't really create the impression that their | sport is that one cheap trick to skip a propper medical | X-Ray. | | Or phrased differently: there are no people with broken bones | and insufficient funds looking at skateboarders and thinking: | "I should do that, because I live in a nation without a | propper health care system" | a1pulley wrote: | I think you mean "free solo climbing," not "free climbing." | Free climbing means climbing with a rope and belayer but | without artificial aid, like etriers or jumars. | yupper32 wrote: | Free climbing is dangerous enough to be in that list, IMO. | Lots of things can go wrong even with ropes. | ribosometronome wrote: | Really? It seems to me like folk on YouTube generally get | upset over folk doing dangerous things without framing them | as such. Folk are upset at Alex Choi over his involvement | with the recent Tesla jump that resulted in a crash and | damaged property. There was a fair deal of outrage at Trevor | Jacob within the aviation community over his apparent fake | engine failure video, where he did the wrong thing even if | the engine had failed. The Thought Emporium had folk wagging | their finger at them when they had a video on a guy trying to | modify his own genome so they wouldn't be lactose intolerant. | | But folk generally aren't mad with about things the | Mythbusters' did, even though they could have been dangerous, | because they were presented as dangerous. Folk have gotten | into competitions to fill their backyards with the most foam | they can -- which can be dangerous. But it's generally | presented as that and they talk about the heat generated and | such. Those sorts of things are generally presented as | entertaining not a way to get around an expensive medical | system or good idea. | hammock wrote: | Exposure to x-rays is harmful every time. In contrast, | basejumping, skateboard tricks, etc. only pose a risk of | harm. | deltaonefour wrote: | At the very worst (and it's not even at the worst) you can call | this guy stupid for building something like that. | | But 69k for an xray? That's where the outrage should be | directed. That's evil in it's purest form. More then just | simple outrage, the person responsible for charging that 69k | bill is someone that needs to go to jail. | | The sad thing is, the responsibility is distributed among the | entire medical industry. It's very similar to the phenomenon of | software engineer salaries. | willis936 wrote: | I was one of the commenters criticizing him, though I did not | post anything until his dismissive response video. | | I made no personal attacks, but highlighted how dangerous it is | to the audience to present 10+ kV supplies as no-big-deal toys. | Everyone _can_ acquire an HV supply and play with it. Many of | them even _should_ , but certainly not because of a video | demonstrating ways to kill yourself with absolute no risk | assessment. | in0v8r wrote: | This line of thinking is quite confusing to me. The amount of | neglected children lucky enough to participate, unsupervised, | in an experiment like this is certainly dramatically less | than the amount you could save by hiring more social workers. | With respect to supervision, why is responsibility being | shifted away from parents? Blaming a YouTube video for your | child's chronic exposure to X-rays is a poor excuse for not | paying attention to you kid. Not to mention, the | proliferation of this type of video would automatically | expose the inherent danger as the safety-adverse content | providers reveal the consequences. | throwaway14572 wrote: | I was saddened to see that he stopped producing videos after | this. This is exemplary of a serious social problem we seem to | have. | | I feel for him personally, because I've had a similar personal | "ultimatum" regarding online interaction: | | I _don 't comment and don't contribute at all any more_ because | the emotional load of what you receive in return just... Isn't | worth it. | | So much nasty, pointless noise. I was taught as a kid to "Say | nothing at all, if you have nothing nice to say". Now I'm | sticking to it, and some. | | It's sad for sure, as this represents a macro-level chilling | effect on social interaction. | | I don't want to be "that Evan guy" in the comments trolling, | and I don't want to risk receiving the noise of trolls. So I | just opted out. | | These days, I just passively consume things online, observing | the waves of rage and bigotry, and letting them flow by, | knowing I have no stake in their game. | | Things are _much better_ in real life, where I have great | conversations with friends, family, and coworkers. We can get | in to deep conversations and negativity isn 't taken personally | like that. Because the bandwidth is higher between participants | and we care about each other. | | The only remaining way I contribute, is to create one-off | accounts, say what I think if it's nice, and never look at it | again. I don't want to see the responses, because they just | lure you in to wanting to respond, and they end up wasting | emotional space in my mind. | abnercoimbre wrote: | I explained once that I think social media as-is _must_ | perish. A more humane business model should rise from the | ashes. Responses boiled down to shrugs stating Twitter | reflects society and we can 't escape it. | | I'll remain optimistic. | monksy wrote: | I think that a lot of society has changed for the worse given | the freedom and aggressive adoption of tech companies | "disrupting." (What I mean is: They're given the ability to | try to aggressively make money at all costs and force their | will. Consequences on people, rights, laws be damned.) | | Youtube has no interest in curating great content by | creators. They just want to keep that money printer going and | keeping people on the site. There was a comment somewhere | about the views that someone gets.. honest, good, and | educational content doesn't get rewarded as much as a person | doing pranks that harm people. | mrguyorama wrote: | Was it really the fallout from this video? William got hit by | the same thing most other good Youtubers like him struggle | with: Burnout. Youtube and the algorithm want you to put out | content every day, and will penalize you, and literally give | you less money if you don't. This sucks for the "science" | youtubers because their videos are projects that often require | months of work and sometimes don't pan out. | | NileRed, and close friend of William Osman's, has also | significantly reduced his output, because it's absurd. Google | wants you to kill yourself putting out as much content as | possible, and doesn't care if you have to reduce quality or | literally die as a result. If you quit, someone new will take | your place. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > If you quit, someone new will take your place. | | Why is this a bad thing? | | You wouldn't actually prefer if Google kept new creators from | getting views just to benefit old creators who aren't | producing as much content, would you? | | > Google wants you to kill yourself putting out as much | content as possible, and doesn't care if you have to reduce | quality or literally die as a result. | | No, Google does not want you to "literally die". They aren't | taking anything away from old YouTubers by letting users | watch content from new YouTubers. | | YouTube is an increasingly crowded content and more and more | creators are vying for views and advertising dollars. You're | ascribing a lot of malice to Google, but you're literally | just describing market competition. | | The alternative (keeping new content creators locked out so | old content creators could continue to profit more) is | obviously not viable. | hackmiester wrote: | His followup video about burnout repeatedly referenced the | comments he got about the X-ray video. So I'd say it was a | large contributing factor. | chrononaut wrote: | > Youtube and the algorithm want you to put out content every | day, and will penalize you, and literally give you less money | if you don't. | | I am not familiar with Youtube's payment system. Are you | saying they do something like reduce the $ per ad / per view | you receive based on the age of the video? | beaconstudios wrote: | That's why a lot of project based channels lean more on | sponsorships, patreon and youtube members for a regular | income. | | For example, thought emporium (my favourite science youtuber) | puts out videos very rarely but they're always big innovative | projects and he makes enough to have bought a new lab | recently. | ShamelessC wrote: | In this case, I think it's safe for the viewers to share some | of the blame with Google. | dntrkv wrote: | William himself said the reason he is stopping is because of | the trolls. I don't remember him mentioning the algorithms at | all. | piyh wrote: | Cody's Lab did a video series on making yellow cake uranium | that got him a visit from g men. Most everything Colin Furze | does has mortal danger. Styropyro is probably also on a | watchlist. Williams project was dangerous, but I don't see a | reason why he should be a pariah. | anitil wrote: | From memory I believe the reason he got the visit was because | he made a joke about creating a fusion reactor - something | like "until I get my fusion reactor running I'll need to use | the sun" | hef19898 wrote: | Promoting dangerous projects on a platform accessible by | _children_ (yes, I did it, I said think about the children!) | should be a reason to be called out. | qazpot wrote: | If we follow that route a lot of internet would need to be | banned. | hef19898 wrote: | Well, there's a reason why we have Youtoube and PornHub | on the other hand, don't we? | mwint wrote: | ... which are both accessible by children. I don't see | the point you're making? | hef19898 wrote: | If you don't get the difference between a dedicated adult | site, with adult content, and a general public platform I | see why you don't see the point. | xboxnolifes wrote: | That's why there is Youtube Kids [1]. See, the content is | separated. Kids shouldn't be on youtube. | | [1] https://www.youtubekids.com/ | adolph wrote: | _YouTube Kids is mostly safe, but there 's a small chance | kids could see nudity, violence, or just weird stuff, as | well as ads for stuff like junk food. Our study found | that 27% of videos watched by kids 8 and under are | intended for older target audiences, with violence being | the most likely negative content type. . . . On the plus | side for parents, YouTube offers fair warning that kids | may see something that you don't want them to see and you | can block and report inappropriate videos._ | | https://www.commonsensemedia.org/articles/parents- | ultimate-g... | bencollier49 wrote: | YouTube Kids is not safe for kids. Am a parent, stopped | allowing that long ago. | robertlagrant wrote: | You're right. A parent giving children access to all of the | physical equipment to make this, and leaving them so | unsupervised that they can do it is fine. The bad thing is | making a video of you doing it, in case people pretend | you're promoting it. | | This is why I will never let my children read a car manual. | What if they build a car and run someone over? | xattt wrote: | A car manual only tells you how to operate a specific | model of a car, not how to build one ;) | jstarfish wrote: | It's frighteningly easy for children to get their hands | on materials like arsenic and thallium. All they need is | a credit card and a YouTube tutorial helpfully walking | them through the dosage. | | I used to share your perspective. Then I ended up with a | [step]kid whose only interests in medicine and | engineering keep me awake at night. | marginalia_nu wrote: | I get where you're coming from. I knew a kid who was | really into making explosives, he ended up blowing | himself up one night after cooking up a batch of TATP. | Pretty tragic story, he was a bright kid. As I remember, | I think he had a single mom who couldn't quite be there | for him. | | I think the best way of dealing with that sort of | situation is to find them a mentor or role model that can | show them how it's actually done and turn the interest | into something that can be explored safely. I think if my | friend had actually known real chemists that could mentor | him and that he could talk to about his projects, there's | a chance he might have been alive today. | | There are things that have an element of danger, and then | there are things that are reckless bordering on suicidal. | Any real world chemist would probably just stare at you | in disbelief if you told them you wanted to make TATP in | your bedroom. That isn't just dangerous, it's moronic, | beyond reckless. | | This stuff is highly explosive and notoriously difficult | to handle because of its volatility and propensity for | spontaneous detonation. You don't know that if you're 15 | and getting all your advice from the Internet, though. | You may even hear a nickname like "mother of satan" and | think it sounds pretty cool. Turns out chemists usually | give substances nicknames like that for a reason. | | I think what's the most dangerous is kids experimenting | alone without any experience based advice from some dodgy | internet forum. | zen_1 wrote: | "All they need is a credit card and ..." | | The idea of children having access to a credit card | strikes me as dangerous and irresponsible for many more | reasons than just the odd chance that they use it to buy | chemicals online. | | If you want to buy something as a child, you use cash or | get a parent's permission. | | (Preempting the "ok boomer" responses, I'm 22 this year) | ClumsyPilot wrote: | > If you want to buy something as a child, you use cash | | Agreed, cash is harder to trace | zen_1 wrote: | True, but I think we're talking about different ages of | kid here :) | cableshaft wrote: | It's possible they have access to the credit card without | permission. Most people don't keep their credit cards | locked up in a gun safe. | | Mine could be retrieved right now out of my wallet lying | on a tray in my living room. I also don't have children, | so I'm not particularly concerned personally. I haven't | caught my dogs buying anything online yet. | vorpalhex wrote: | If your kid can and will do things like steal your credit | card, make unauthorized purchases and buy explosives.. | the problem is not that William Osman didn't wear PPE. | zen_1 wrote: | I remember my own experience with "youtube explosives" as | a kid. | | I'd watched NurdRage's video [1] on how to extract | lithium from a certain type of battery and thought that | sounded like fun, so I asked my father to help me get the | batteries needed. When he then asked me why I needed this | specific type of (not cheap) battery, I showed him [1] | and he said "That looks dangerous and fun, let's do it | together" (or something to that effect). | | One hour and some needle nose pliers later, we're down | one battery and a burn hole in our bathroom tiles (as a | result of a lithium fire that my father immediately | suffocated), but up a bonding experience. | | Had I tried to disassemble the battery alone (ignoring | for a moment how I'd have gotten my hands on it in the | first place without my father's knowledge, perhaps by | stealing a credit card or with an Alexa's assistance, as | other posters have suggested might happen), I probably | would have attempted to extinguish the burning lithium by | pouring water on it, which I'm sure would have gone | excellently :). | | I guess the moral of my story is that it's probably more | effective to try to earn your kids' trust and ensure | their safety yourself, rather than attempt to child-proof | the rest of the world (with the assumption that your | children will be going behind your back in their attempts | to earn Darwin awards in new and exciting ways). | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliWUHSOalU | elliekelly wrote: | Children don't even need to root around in a parent's | wallet. They can just ask Alexa. | zen_1 wrote: | Stealing your parent's credit card strikes me as the more | pressing issue here, rather than a youtube video that | shows you how to do something dangerous. | Loughla wrote: | You can buy most of these things on amazon with one | click. | | Source: all of the chemicals I've purchased to blow up | tree stumps and what-not that I'm sure have me on some | watch list somewhere. | s0rce wrote: | You can get thallium on Amazon? I can't think of a common | consumer application of thallium is it in some product? | duskwuff wrote: | There is at least one vendor selling a sample of thallium | in an acrylic cube as a collector's item. Unclear how | much is actually present, but any perceptible amount | would be pretty dangerous if removed from its enclosure. | dekhn wrote: | WARNING: this is serious stuff. Read https://www.cdc.gov/ | niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750... and | https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/thallium- | poisoning... and | https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/chemist- | poisoning... | | I think you have to go to specialty suppliers. | https://luciteria.com/elements-for-sale/thallium- | metal-9999 | HideousKojima wrote: | You must think all of the high school physics classes that | build pumpkin trebuchets are monstrous then. | buescher wrote: | I checked out all of Alfred Morgan's books from multiple | public libraries (a platform accessible by children!!!) in | the seventies and early eighties. Probably saw the golden | book of chemistry experiments at some point too - it looked | very familiar when I got a copy of the pdf as an adult. I | think the difficulty of obtaining model T spark coils, | chemicals ("ask your druggist") etc kept me out of a lot of | trouble. | Hydraulix989 wrote: | Ah yes, the think of the children argument. This is why | other nice things like chemistry sets and science fiction / | fantasy books are also banned. | vinyl7 wrote: | Maybe it's time we don't allow children on the internet. | Same way we don't allow children to wonder around in the | city by themselves | kube-system wrote: | COPPA is coming up on its 22nd anniversary, it's due for | an update. | mschuetz wrote: | Since when do we not allow children to wander around by | themselves? It's perfectly normal in Austria. | hef19898 wrote: | Since we do the latter, I don't see problems with the | former. | anamax wrote: | Huh? | | Where and when don't we allow children to wander around | the city by themselves? | | In many large cities, kids are expected to use public | transit to get to/from school. It's not unknown for | parents to send kids on errands. And, how does the kid | get to the park? | | This "kids can't go anywhere alone" idea is very new. | | My Mom complained that the one route that I never used to | go to/from school is the one that she showed me. | sho_hn wrote: | It seems to be a recent development in some larger | American cities. | | I work in a company in Berlin that has job applicants | from many different countries, including the US. Common | question during the process (we generally require | relocation at this point) are: | | - "Can my 12yo children go somewhere alone? I'm from | Portland/similar and this is not the case here and it's | why we're moving." | | - "We've been looking and it's really hard to find an | apartment in Berlin. We have this ground-floor option, | but they just shot the ground-floor windows in across the | street here again this morning. Is ground floor safe in | Berlin? | | I'm no longer surprised when it comes up, but it's quite | sad. | mschuetz wrote: | Since when do we not allow children to wander around by | themselves? It's perfectly normal in Austria. | mschuster91 wrote: | > Same way we don't allow children to wonder around in | the city by themselves | | Here in Germany, it's absolutely no problem for kids aged | 8 to go to school on their own. | | On the other hand, we offer public transport and our | cities _are_ walkable... | hef19898 wrote: | Taking the Munich subway during school rush hour was | always fun! | mschuster91 wrote: | Oh, a fellow person from Munich! HN is a village. | hef19898 wrote: | It really is! | rootusrootus wrote: | sudosysgen wrote: | Ah yes, children building X-Ray machines and pulsejet | engines without parental supervision, of course. | adolph wrote: | And nukes! Its been a while since I read "The Radioactive | Boy Scout" and after rereading it I'm defintely going to | keep my kid close as he goes through TCOR's black powder | and other experiments. | | _The truth is far more bizarre: the Golf Manor Superfund | cleanup was provoked by the boy next door, David Hahn, | who attempted to build a nuclear breeder reactor in his | mother's potting shed as part of a Boy Scout merit-badge | project._ | | [...] | | _David Hahn taught himself to build a neutron gun. He | figured out a way to dupe officials at the Nuclear | Regulatory Commission into providing him with crucial | information he needed in his attempt to build a breeder | reactor, and then he obtained and purified radioactive | elements such as radium and thorium._ | | [...] | | _David's parents admired his interest in science but | were alarmed by the chemical spills and blasts that | became a regular event at the Hahn household. After David | destroyed his bedroom--the walls were badly pocked, and | the carpet was so stained that it had to be ripped out-- | Ken and Kathy banished his experiments to the basement._ | | [...] | | _Kathy then forbade David from experimenting in her | home. So he shifted his base of operations to his | mother's potting shed in Golf Manor. Both Patty Hahn and | Michael Polasek admired David for the endless hours he | spent in his new lab, but neither of them had any idea | what he was up to. Sure, they thought it was odd that | David often wore a gas mask in the shed and would | sometimes discard his clothing after working there until | two in the morning, but they chalked it up to their own | limited education. Michael says that David tried to | explain his experiments but that "what he told me went | right over my head." One thing still sticks out, though. | David's potting-shed project had something to do with | creating energy. "He'd say, `One of these days we're | gonna run out of oil.' He wanted to do something about | that."_ | | https://harpers.org/archive/1998/11/the-radioactive-boy- | scou... | [deleted] | Nextgrid wrote: | Maybe we should just ban children going outside lest they | see an adult doing something unsafe. | agumonkey wrote: | You can add: photonicinduction. Everybody looks crazy until | they're next to this dude. The dimensions involved scare me, | and his "goes to 11 is not enough" attitude makes it even | worse. | snerbles wrote: | Photonicinduction's videos fulfill the wild mad electrical | engineering fantasies I never had the guts to try as an | undergrad. | 0des wrote: | There is no pearl clutching in science. | zen_1 wrote: | I believe (though my memory is foggy, so don't quote me on | this) Styropyro was approached by some military/DARPA | projects with an employment offer, but he reportedly turned | it down. | rhinoceraptor wrote: | Colin Furze's videos are much worse in the way he shows not | using safety gear. At least an X-Ray tube is hard to come by, | hard to use and people generally know it's dangerous. | iso1631 wrote: | He has a safety tie | teetertater wrote: | Even that seems not to be featured anymore in his latest | videos | lsllc wrote: | Colin was arrested in 2010: | | https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/plumber-arrested-on- | fi... | | (I was going to find a "better" source, but the Mirror's | version is a bit more entertaining). | mananaysiempre wrote: | > an X-Ray tube is hard to come by | | I don't know what energies you need for medical imaging, | but a keV linear electron accelerator is commonly called "a | CRT", and it's already powerful enough to screw you up if | you really try. | | (Of course, the power supply, the flyback converter, and | all the other stuff you get at immediately upon opening the | case are plenty dangerous even without all the effort it | takes to get ionizing radiation out of the tube.) | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Colin Furze is basically a first world mining operation | compared to the "look at how they do <insert thing here> in | <insert equatorial country here>" type videos that nobody | takes any issue with. | | There's a double standard in there somewhere. | RF_Savage wrote: | After Osmans video all cheap x-ray tubes ware just gone on | ebay for weeks. | | This often happens. | | The video also did not really emphazise the dangers | involved. | danw1979 wrote: | Of Course we should set a good example when it comes to | working with dangerous things in our youtube videos. We | should use PPE at all times and give clear warnings about | the risks throughout the video... | | ... But Maybe if you're too stupid to realise that a safety | tie isn't actually protective, then maybe your upcoming | appointment with evolution is overdue. | Loughla wrote: | Alternate option - stemming from the OP comment - if we | want to get _children_ involved in engineering and | science fields, and this kind of _cool shit science_ is | how we can easily do it, they absolutely have to assume a | portion of their audience won 't know what is real and | what isn't. | | In other words, not everyone is you. Always remember | that. | Robotbeat wrote: | Wiley Coyote and the roadrunner rarely wear appropriate | PPE. ;) Kids don't watch any cartoons, do they? | _fat_santa wrote: | After watching his X-Ray video, I watched the video where he | said he was done with it. The guy needed to stop reading all | his comments. Joe Rogan literally has a bit about this exact | situation with Youtube comments. | Maursault wrote: | Poor Joe Rogan just can't get a break while singing dangerous | praises as though Gospel. He uses his platform irresponsibly, | gives voice to crackpots and idiots, and is prone to | disseminating misinformation, which makes him remarkably | dangerous. Rogan, Hannity and Carlson are only for the weak- | minded. | KennyBlanken wrote: | trident5000 wrote: | Sorry people you dont agree with can have a voice. Theres | no such thing as a "dangerous" opinion. Learn to listen to | all sides and let others listen to all sides and then make | independent decisions. The way you battle terrible speech | is with countering speech, not shutting down conversation | to your liking. | ShamelessC wrote: | Damn after I found out he made it a habit to say a | particular racial slur on the show I figured people were | done with this guy. Can't fathom how people think he's | defensible (and indeed, not a single downvote has left a | defense). | datavirtue wrote: | Why is the reaction "stop making videos?" You can serve | videos from Cloudflare and sell your own ad placements to pay | the paltry fees...with no one hanging over you. These content | creators could easily use YouTube to promote their own site | and pivot away. | [deleted] | mrtksn wrote: | Woah, I was wondering why I'm not seeing new videos from him. | | Turn's out, he even made a video about it and I simply missed | it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVCpKfedfok | strunz wrote: | Seems like he's coming back and outsourcing the editing - | https://twitter.com/WilliamOsman/status/1486815129563918338 | newacct0 wrote: | atum47 wrote: | He kinda quit after this video. Apparently people gave him all | kinds of sh*t in the comments | mistrial9 wrote: | adverse legal actions with non-disclosure perhaps? | kadoban wrote: | No. Youtube is just toxic to one's mental health. | atum47 wrote: | I kinda agree with you. Seems they were even after his | girlfriend, being overweight or something. | dekhn wrote: | Rightfully so. I've worked with people who are qualified to do | this (literally, a person who stared into a synchrotron) but | they limit their commentary to the scientific literature. | criddell wrote: | Were you unable to turn comments off back then? | blamazon wrote: | Turning off comments as an independent YouTube creator is | these days potential career suicide, as 'engagement' is a | huge part of the algorithm. | | What you're "supposed" to do these days, is engage with | comments (literally like and reply!) early in your career, | when the stream of feedback small and manageable, to drive | engagement, and stop looking when they become unmanageable. | This strategy is rewarded by YouTube. | | Many creators struggle to draw that line because it can feel | like turning their back on their fans. | pkstn wrote: | How on earth can x ray cost $69,210.32? Here in Finland it costs | something like 20 EUR (well, I know that's not the true cost, but | still). | phkahler wrote: | >> How on earth can x ray cost $69,210.32? Here in Finland it | costs something like 20 EUR (well, I know that's not the true | cost, but still). | | How can an x-ray cost more than a pair of shoes? They used to | use x-rays at the shoe store to check fit - for free. Say this | to any doctor in the US and watch the silence on their face. | kube-system wrote: | A radiologist may give you a better medical diagnosis. | | "Is my foot broken? Not sure, but it's a size 10" | recuter wrote: | The doctors of course have as much to do with the price of | x-rays as Al Bundy. | imgabe wrote: | > "I avoided surgery, but they still billed nearly $70,000," | Osman tells Popular Mechanics, adding that the bill included an | abdominal CT scan, medication, and two nights in a hospital | room. | | Still exorbitant, but it wasn't just for the X-ray. Ultimately | it's because hospitals and insurance companies are part of a | legal price-fixing scheme. | lbriner wrote: | I was wondering the same. Sure, I get the fact that people can | hike the prices but I thought that the insurance companies | would not allow a hospital to charge whatever they like, at | least if you want to claim it from insurance. | | XRay machines are pretty basic afaik compared to say, an MRI | and at that price you could get 2 nights in the New York Hilton | penthouse! | RandallBrown wrote: | It wasn't just the X Ray that cost 69k. At the end of the video | he calls an urgent care place and it's about $70 for an X Ray. | jpollock wrote: | It costs that much in an emergency room, where the price is | based on having multiple x-ray machines + radiologists | available, 24/7, 365 with a 5 minute wait. | | If you go to a clinic, which works 9-5 M-F, they're $40 (chest | x-ray for a green card), 20minute wait. | deltaonefour wrote: | 7-11 is 24/7 hours too and an even faster wait time for a ice | cold coke. | | I can't tell if your post is just illustrating the difference | or justifying it because a 5 minute wait time and 24/7 | radiologists on call doesn't justify 69k in any reality. | dekhn wrote: | rack rates, amortization, standing infrastructure. | | Most people don't pay rack rates (that's the quote for $69K), | many orgs amortize costs across many people, and hospitals run | 24/7 and have to maintain a lot of standing infra. The capital | costs for acquiring a pro-grade x-ray (and staff it) are | nontrivial. | | But yes, a single x-ray should never cause a bill for $69K. | Even if the user only pays $5K. | CogitoCogito wrote: | It doesn't cost that it's just that medical fraud is legal in | the US. | nisegami wrote: | YouTuber = William Osman | | It always bothers me when blogs don't include the person name's | in the title and just refer to them as "YouTuber". It's less | egregious when it's social media like Reddit, but it's different | when it's the way they earn a living. | geoffeg wrote: | They have to get you to click the link to find the name so they | can get the ad impressions. However, you saved me a click! | lotsofpulp wrote: | They also have to stir up outrage by falsifying not only how | much the person was billed, but also implying that the bill | was simply for an x ray. | chasd00 wrote: | And there's no way the insurance company paid $66.5K. The | dollar amount on the bill is like the opening of the | negotiation, it always starts way high and comes down from | there. There's a rule that if an insurance company pays the | bill you send them then you undercharged. | cjrp wrote: | It's in the video, the insurance company paid about $8.5k | and he paid another $2.5k. So you're absolutely right, | that $69k bill turned into $11k pretty quickly. | Tronno wrote: | I'm not sure how 2.5k for an x-ray and antibiotics is | anything less than outrageous. Perhaps that's pocket change | for this crowd? | | And that's after insurance. The full price is unthinkable | to me - most people would be ruined for years. | floor2 wrote: | Because, like every other rage-bait article about | healthcare in America, it's a blatant lie. | | The article states in addition to the x-ray that "the | bill included an abdominal CT scan, medication, and two | nights in a hospital room". American hospitals are full | of multimillion dollar equipment and trained specialists | staffed around the clock. | | "The full price" is a fiction relevant only to | negotiation of actual price between providers and | government/institutional payers, no individual ever pays | that. It's an imaginary number used to start price | discovery so that the hospital, insurance companies and | critically the government medicare/medicaid program can | make some set of concessions and discounts so that in the | end everyone comes to a "win-win" agreement. | lotsofpulp wrote: | My comment was not intended to indicate whether or not | $2.5k is or is not outrageous. | | The point of my comment is that $69k was apparently | deemed to be sufficiently more outrageous and hence | clickbait worthy such that it incentivized the writer to | lie about the facts. | mrguyorama wrote: | No. If I go to a hospital and get things done, and do not | give them an insurance card, they can send me a bill for | whatever numbers they want, and _I am legally required to | pay that!_ | | The fact that you can often negotiate when you have a | large debt that you are unlikely to pay _does not change | the fact that the debt is legitimate_ | lotsofpulp wrote: | Sure, but that is not relevant here because the person in | the article did not receive a bill for $69k. My comments | were strictly about the "journalist" painting the wrong | picture about this specific scenario in order to incite | emotion, presumably in order to get more people to click. | ars wrote: | An x-ray in the US is around $30 if you pay for it | yourself. The 2.5K is the article lying to you to get | clicks. | cbozeman wrote: | I don't think that's by accident. | | If someone works in legacy media, like network and cable | television, printed newspaper or magazine, and they don't | clearly see the shift away from print and broadcast media to | Internet video, then they're totally behind the curve, and they | doing exactly what you always see people in dying prominent | institutions do - struggle to maintain relevancy using any | method possible. In this case, I would argue, "downplaying" so- | called "new media" people. | | Sam Harris said it best when explaining why he doesn't make | book writing his focus any longer: "I can reach 100,000 people | by writing a book, which will take about a year from idea to | published hardcover, or I can record a podcast, which will take | a day, and reach 500,000 people." | hexane360 wrote: | This is just how you write headlines though. It's not "<some | person you've never heard of> proposes bill", it's "California | state senator proposes bill". It's not "<some random engineer> | makes new technology", it's "Engineer makes new technology". | | I don't think it's related to trying to devalue 'YouTuber' as a | profession. | icholy wrote: | I believe he is an engineer. | [deleted] | dewey wrote: | > After receiving a medical treatment that included a round of | antibiotics and an X-ray scan, Californian Will Osman thought | he got stuck with a $69,000 hospital bill. Luckily, Osman's | insurance covered most of the bill, but that still left him on | the hook for $2,500. | | That's the first sentence of the article. Doesn't that cover | that pretty well? | xeromal wrote: | I think they mean his name should be in the title of the | article. | dewey wrote: | Doesn't really make sense to me. If it would say "Will | Osman Builds His Own X-Ray Machine" it doesn't really | convey the same message as "YouTuber" which is kinda | equivalent to "a regular person" and not a professional | x-ray engineer. | hef19898 wrote: | I highly doubt a professional would do it, or at the very | least not post it oblibe if they did. | scrumbledober wrote: | I'm sure there's room for "Youtuber William Osman Builds | His Own X-Ray Machine" | xwdv wrote: | So much hospital bill stuff is just rampant clickbait. A man got | a $120k hospital bill after an allergy attack, a baby costs $36k | to be born, etc. | | No one actually pays these amounts without insurance and if you | have no insurance you probably don't pay at all and just default | on the debt. No one is paying this. No one. You never hear | stories of people being utterly bankrupted by a huge hospital | bill. | matthewmacleod wrote: | Quite literally the biggest cause of bankruptcies in the US. | http://www.pnhp.org/docs/AJPHBankruptcy2019.pdf | anamax wrote: | The data in that paper doesn't support the conclusion. | | Loss of income was the big problem, by far. | rdedev wrote: | https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/14/health-insur... | | An article about insured people going medically bankrupt. When | things go according to plan and insurance covers everything it | all good but when it doesn't it next to impossible for people | to afford it. And it's not like bankrupois without consequences | xwdv wrote: | The medical bill isn't why they go bankrupt. They lose their | job to disability and thus their income and now they can't | pay any kind of bills. Or they were just in a bad financial | state to begin with. | aqme28 wrote: | > You never hear stories of people being utterly bankrupted by | a huge hospital bill. | | Isn't medical bankruptcy the leading cause of bankruptcy? What | are you talking about? | anamax wrote: | > Isn't medical bankruptcy the leading cause of bankruptcy? | | No. | | People go broke when they get sick because they can't work. | | Medical bills are the easiest to dodge. | damontal wrote: | medical bills get sent to collections just like any other | bill | xwdv wrote: | Part of the reason why health insurance is so expensive | is that so many simply do not pay their bills. You | subsidize all these people with your premiums. | ars wrote: | And that's where they stay. Nothing happens if you just | ignore them. | olyjohn wrote: | Doesn't that destroy your credit? | xwdv wrote: | No | marcusverus wrote: | The idea that medical bankruptcy is the leading cause of | bankruptcy is a carefully engineered fiction. The claim is | normally worded something like "2/3 of bankruptcies are | caused by medical bills" and includes a reference to an | academic study[0], so it sounds super legit! But not only | does the study _not_ support the claim--it clearly | contradicts the idea that Medicare For All would improve the | situation. | | You're probably rolling your eyes right around now, so I'll | dispense with the characterizations and move on to the proof. | | First of all, here's the actual main takeaway from the study: | | > 62.1% of all bankruptcies have a medical cause. | | Huh. "having a medical cause" is far from "caused by medical | bills", right?. I wonder what "a medical cause" means? | | > We included debtors who either (1) cited illness or injury | as a specific reason for bankruptcy (27%), or (2) reported | uncovered medical bills exceeding $1,000 in the past [two] | years (27%), or (3) lost at least two weeks of work-related | income because of illness/injury,(27%) or (4) mortgaged a | home to pay medical bills. (2%) | | So if I had a $1000 dollar operation two years ago, paid it | off, then filed bankruptcy when my small business tanked last | month, mine would be a "Medical bankruptcy". | | Further down in the article, it gets better: | | Only 35% of debtors had medical bills >$5000, while 92% of | the 62% ("medical bankruptcies") had medical bills >$5000. | But the average net worth for "medical bankruptcies" was | _-$44,000_ (negative $44,000), while the average annual | income was $31,000. In other words, these are people who, | even in the absence of their medical debt, would almost | certainly have been filing for bankruptcy anyway. | | BTW--the median income of one of these bankruptcies, in | conjunction with their median household size of 2.79, makes | it clear that the vast majority of them were be eligible for | Medicaid! Would a rebranding of their state-run healthcare | leave them any better off? | | [0] https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(09)00404-5/full | tex... | xwdv wrote: | I feel a lot of this should have been obvious to the HN | crowd but it seems like they fell for the fiction. | haveyoubeen wrote: | Why do you think insurance companies are so happy to pay | these exorbitant sums to the medical industry? | | Like what is there motivation? | | Anyone with a brain can see none of this makes sense. You | have planted an entire forest of bullshit above that nobody | can verify is true or not. | | The middle class is being wiped out. Everyone knows this. | It's happening from all angles and everyone knows medical | bills are one of the main weapons used by the government to | do it. | marcusverus wrote: | > Why do you think insurance companies are so happy to | pay these exorbitant sums to the medical industry? | | I have no idea what you're asking. | | > Anyone with a brain can see none of this makes sense. | | We're in full agreement! | | > You have planted an entire forest of bullshit above | that nobody can verify is true or not. | | If only I'd linked the study! | | > The middle class is being wiped out. Everyone knows | this. | | Yes, with more people moving to the upper class than the | lower.[0] And the increase in lower-class households is | _totally_ unrelated to the fact that all US population | growth is driven by low-skill immigration! | | > It's happening from all angles and everyone knows | medical bills are one of the main weapons used by the | government to do it. | | Of course! Democratic governments with consumer-driven | economies are notorious for their hatred of the middle | class! | | [0]https://www.pewresearch.org/social- | trends/2016/05/11/america... | rsynnott wrote: | > and if you have no insurance you probably don't pay at all | and just default on the debt. [..] You never hear stories of | people being utterly bankrupted by a huge hospital bill. | | ... I mean, I assume one of the more common methods of | defaulting is bankruptcy? | cjbgkagh wrote: | I didn't know you could default on a debt without later going | bankrupt to get relief from debt collectors | ghotli wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 | | ^^ I won't editorialize much, but this is the first thing I | thought of. | | _It was involved in at least six accidents between 1985 and | 1987, in which patients were given massive overdoses of | radiation. Because of concurrent programming errors (also known | as race conditions), it sometimes gave its patients radiation | doses that were hundreds of times greater than normal, resulting | in death or serious injury._ | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Chemotherapy radiation is not x-ray radiation. | ghotli wrote: | -\\_(tsu)_/- | | Hope you enjoyed the link regardless | roywiggins wrote: | "The machine had three modes of operation... A "field light" | mode... Direct electron-beam therapy... Megavolt X-ray (or | photon) therapy, which delivered a beam of 25 MeV X-ray | photons" | | So, still x-ray radiation, but at much higher voltages than | diagnostic x-rays. | | (The accident was indeed overexposure to the electron beam, | not to the x-rays, but the electron beam was part of the | process for producing the x-rays in normal operation) | Rebelgecko wrote: | What is "chemotherapy radiation"? | habi wrote: | _Chemotherapy_ is fighting cancer with drugs, not radiation: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy | | Often, the fight does involve radiation therapy in addition, | though! | ck2 wrote: | I was looking for mobile x-ray truck services when I came across | this article. | | I do wish by now there was some kind of DIY at-home safe | alternative to x-ray with resolution say better than ultrasound, | so you could check for fractures in your feet, etc. | | Guess we have at least another decade for that, requires a leap | in technology. But I bet by the end of the century you'll be able | to do it on your smartphone or whatever people are using by then. | | How about some kind of film or sensor that needs minutes of | particle exposure from a far lesser powerful source? You would | rest your foot or limb on the film or sensor for a minute. There | would be a little blur but manageable, maybe corrected digitally? | hef19898 wrote: | We had home-use x-rays in 50s. There is a reason we stopped | having those, there are reasons why medical devices are | regulated. Promoting home-build stuff is dangerous. Especially | since non-trained people just don't know what they are looking | at when looking at x-ray pictures. | lbriner wrote: | The imagery equipment is one thing, the other is the skill to | interpret what you see. Sure, a bad fracture might be obvious | but there are many very subtle things that are not so easy to | see or understand. The radiographer will know the equipment but | will usually have to defer to the Doctor for expert advice. | | Mobile equipment does exist, however it is usually used at | smaller hospitals who don't have the space or money for a | permanent unit. | everforward wrote: | > How about some kind of film or sensor that needs minutes of | particle exposure from a far lesser powerful source? You would | rest your foot or limb on the film or sensor for a minute. | There would be a little blur but manageable, maybe corrected | digitally? | | I think that blur would be problematic for fractures, at least | for the variety where you aren't sure whether you should go to | the hospital or not. | | More generally speaking, even if we had a safe way to get | X-rays at home diagnosing them is hard. The "bone is torn in | half" ones are easy to see, but I don't think you'd even need | an X-ray to diagnose that. The more subtle breaks are hard to | pick up on. I googled for fracture X-rays, and on a lot of them | I can't tell whether there's a fracture or not unless it's | obviously snapped in 2. | | At home X-rays make less sense to me if you're going to have to | have a radiologist look at it anyways. You might as well go to | an outpatient imaging place anyways. | aorloff wrote: | American medical industry is worried that once the xray is | taken, you can ship it to another country where a trained | physician can look at it and diagnose it for $50. The problem | is that the American doctor needs to make orders of magnitude | more money to diagnose. Hopefully we will see this kind of | disintermediation, because for routine stuff (broken bones) | costs should be way lower than they are. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | >because for routine stuff (broken bones) costs should be | way lower than they are. | | Yeah that tends to happen when insurance gets involved in | routine care. | | Not that the doctors don't deserve some credit. | gxt wrote: | Fine US lawmakers should have Congress outlaw scalping. Then | victims of the US medical system would have a novel argument to | sue goodness into the damn thing. | Maursault wrote: | My issue with X-rays is that they are massively overused and | rarely help the diagnosis. 99.9% (an estimation) of X-rays are | used to rule out diagnoses. Sprain your wrist? Need an X-ray to | make sure it's not broken, which your orthopedic already knew. | Unless there's a broken bone or cancer, all X-rays do is pay for | the X-ray machine. | | Tip: never X-ray your pet (unless there is a broken bone or | cancer is suspected). Trust me, it is very unlikely to show | anything. If you're very concerned, go right for the ultrasound, | which probably also won't show anything. Vets are generally | awesome individuals, however, veterinary medicine is a business | for profit quite unlike the health system, and most vet X-rays | merely serve to pay for and justify the expense of the machine. | kube-system wrote: | If that diagnosis is actually being considered, ruling it out | is a very important function, isn't it? | q1w2 wrote: | Humans are far more likely to break bones than pets - so I | agree that it's almost never worth it to get a pet xray. | | For humans though, as someone who's worked in a hospital, xrays | are extremely useful. We see lots of broken bones. Confirming | the break is important so that you know to put the patient in a | cast, but more importantly, the type of break can sometimes | require surgery to set the bone. | | I'm not sure how many xrays rule out a fracture, rather than | confirm it, but it's not 99.9%. If I had to guesstimate, maybe | 10-20% of possible fracture xrays confirm a fracture. That | percentage probably increases greatly as patients age. Kids | very often come in with sprains that their parents want xrays, | whereas a lot of elderly people break bones more easily. | tsol wrote: | >Need an X-ray to make sure it's not broken, which your | orthopedic already knew. | | Not sure where this assumption is from. A doctor can sometimes | tell when something is outright broken, but in a lot of cases | they need to take x-rays to tell if there's a hairline fracture | or something small that might not present with a lot of pain. X | rays also tell the actual severity. | jypepin wrote: | I just saw someone on tiktok showing how they made their own | invisiline from a scan of their teeths. They programmed their own | multi-step adjustment, bought a special 3d printer and printed | all their invisiline things. Unsure how efficient or comparable | theirs will be to the right thing, but I found that very | interesting what a single person can do nowadays! | starlust2 wrote: | Invisiline are actually 3D printed. Formlabs markets a printer | for dental usecases. As long as your models and movement | calculations are correct they'll work the same, but probably | not an easy task. | | https://dental.formlabs.com/materials/ | lbriner wrote: | As with all of these things, it depends how much you can | research what you are doing and what risk you want to take. | | When I first had a retainer, they put this hair-thin wire in | the clips and it didn't make any sense to me, it was so thin, | it seemed pointless until the next morning when my teeth were | really sore. | | The dentist knew that because they are trained. They know when | to adjust wires etc. same with invisiline: sure you aren't | going to die but that doesn't mean you can't do some damage to | your teeth or jaw. | adenta wrote: | Could you send a link? I thought _I_ was cool for just making a | thermoform mold of my teeth that I've been documenting at | https://www.tiktok.com/@unofficial_denta.istry | sergiotapia wrote: | Note that guy said he had personal connections to an "dental | mechanic" (mecanico dental, don't know what it's called in | English). Basically someone professional and licensed to verify | his molds and steps were correct. | kube-system wrote: | > (mecanico dental, don't know what it's called in English) | | Dental lab technician? | teeray wrote: | DIY orthodontics is interesting but also horrifying if it goes | wrong (there are pictures, I will not link them) | drBonkers wrote: | Do you have a link to that? | sgjohnson wrote: | It was not a $69k hospital bill. It was just $2500 for him. | | But it sure does make a good headline. | throwaway675309 wrote: | Trivializing the cost as "just $2500" speaks more about your | privilege than it does anything else. | sgjohnson wrote: | It has nothing to do with privilege or anything other than | basic relativity. $2.5k is "just $2.5k" relative to $69k for | everyone. | deltaonefour wrote: | Well where did that 69k number come from? Seems like the person | at fault here is person that generated that ludicrous number | that's completely BS. | datavirtue wrote: | It wasn't 69k either. That's the troll number the hospitals and | insurance companies use to shock people and justify the actual | high prices. | mrguyorama wrote: | But when they send you that bill, it is a legally valid debt | that you owe them. | | The fact that you can negotiate large debts _does not change | that_ | nanoservices wrote: | Sure... Who is the hospital billing $69k to, the insurance? | Also $2,500 is still a lot. | sgjohnson wrote: | Nobody. Not even the insurance company paid that. | telchior wrote: | Not a completely unreasonable headline, considering that an | uninsured person would get a bill for something probably closer | to $69k than $2.5k. I've gotten one of those bills before, and | IMO the insanity of it cannot be pointed out enough times. | bpodgursky wrote: | This is true and the system is incredibly wasteful and dumb, | but to be clear those uninsured people would immediately | negotiate it down to about $250 by calling and saying "wtf am | I supposed to do with this bill". | olyjohn wrote: | Or they just put you on a payment plan for the rest of your | life. | sofixa wrote: | I wonder what kind of innovations we're missing in the EU with | our affordable healthcare. | jaykk wrote: | the whole title is clickbait. he got insurance. | squarefoot wrote: | > the whole title is clickbait. he got insurance. | | Those fees are crazy nonetheless. | | I don't have any insurance and during the last 1.5 years I | suffered symptomatic Covid (medicines and vaccines free), | then a road accident with multiple fractures: left arm, right | shoulder, both wrists and L4, (nearly 2 months hospitalized | plus long rehab to learn to walk again: all free excluding | the fees for printing the medical data, which were over 400 | pages, and MRI/RX/CT images DVDs: around 20 Euros all | included), then last January I got a heart attack and was | hospitalized in a coronary care unit for 4 days plus 1 day at | the ward where I was planted two stents: again all free | including the 1st bag of medicines. | | 20 years ago I worked in the IT, pays were very good and | therefore taxes were high, but all considered, in the end I | got a lot more than I paid for. I could think of a thousand | things I don't like at all about my country, but healthcare | is definitely not one of them. | Teknoman117 wrote: | I think my post major car accident care (x-rays, ct, | ambulance ride - had concussion) 10 years ago cost me $100 | all said and done on my parents' kaiser plan in California. | | When I walked into a kaiser urgent care last year for | serious back pain I had chest X-rays and a CT and I paid | $20. | | The major issue is that you only get that kind of | healthcare working for a decent company (and using an HMO | plan). Not everyone has the access and that's the issue. | dekhn wrote: | IMHO kaiser is amazing. they have a different incentive | from typical for-profit medical companies. | azinman2 wrote: | Your healthcare cost a lot more than the 20 euros or "free" | that you said. In the US it's a bit more transparent since | you're receiving the bill. In a shared public healthcare | system everyone foots the bill via their taxes. I'm sure | hospitals make out more in the US -- the entire system is | designed to create profit at every stage - but saying | things are "free" elsewhere is disingenuous. | | He also built an x-ray machine, but his charges per the | article were for a CT scan and staying at the hospital. A | CT scan is a totally different beast than an x-ray machine, | and staying at the hospital means you're actively under | medical care the entire time. It's all very clickbaity. | jackson1442 wrote: | The US spends the most per-capita on healthcare in the | world. | TomK32 wrote: | It does, but not very efficiently: | https://www.uclahealth.org/u-magazine/u-s-ranks-near- | bottom-... | Teknoman117 wrote: | Some days I wonder if we're subsidizing Europe's | healthcare in a way. | | European counties impose stringent controls on how much | money their public health system will pay for something | and in response, since said company still wants that | money, it ends up jacking up rates in the US. | jackson1442 wrote: | We certainly are. But I think global healthcare spend | would still decrease if the US were to adopt strict price | controls a la Europe. Of course, Europe will need to pay | a bit more towards healthcare but the burden on the | states would be much decreased. | | I don't imagine it would come anywhere close to the cost | we currently pay for services here though. | | It's the same as university here in the states. If | colleges know that students are walking in with a minimum | of $45k, guaranteed from the federal government, why | wouldn't a university charge anything less than that for | a degree? | TomK32 wrote: | You mean because a large chunk for R&D in medicine is | done in the USA? Maybe that is because in the USA pharma | companies can go mental about pricing their products, who | wouldn't want such a lucrative market that's easy to | exploit thanks to a well-oiled lobby machinery? I highly | doubt that pharma companies would stop their R&D if the | USA was to introduce universal healthcare for everyone of | its citizens. | [deleted] | sofixa wrote: | > Luckily, Osman's insurance covered most of the bill, but | that still left him on the hook for $2,500. | | That's still far more than you'd pay for most healthcare | related things across the EU. | lbriner wrote: | The problem is that the cost for healthcare is hidden. In | the UK, we have "National Insurance" but it doesn't work | like normal insurance. It goes into the same big pot as | everything else and gets spent on whatever. | | It is a hard balance but sometimes when I see people doing | stupid things that land them in the ER, I kind of wish that | their premium would increase as a result. That said, I | think the largest cost in healthcare is the care of the | elderly: We somehow keep people breathing for much longer | than 50 years ago but it doesn't stop their bodies needing | some big maintenance or long-term residential care. | kube-system wrote: | Health insurance premiums in the US don't raise people | rates if they do stupid stuff, with the single exception | of smoking. Rates are basically set based on three | factors: age, location, and smoking status. You do share | costs if there's an accident, but daredevils and school | teachers get the same rate at the same age in the same | city. | floor2 wrote: | So about 3-4 days of work as an entry-level Facebook | developer, or 3-3.5 weeks of work at a McDonalds (based on | every fast-food place around me having billboards up | offering starting wages of $18-20/hr). | | Getting access to emergency life-saving treatment, which | leverages billions of dollars in research & development and | hours of work from a team of doctors, radiologists, nurses, | pharmacists, support staff, etc in exchange for being asked | to contribute back to society by cooking burgers for a | month feels like a pretty amazing offer compared to how | almost all humans have existed in history and most still do | around the world today. | mustacheemperor wrote: | Since the typical fast food service worker see almost | their entire paycheck go to living expenses before any | opportunity for luxuries or savings, that does indeed | sound like a crippling if not insurmountable financial | burden for someone who incurs an x-ray expense like this | unexpectedly. Especially since whatever reason they have | for needing an x-ray could affect their ability to earn | income from McDonalds. I don't think hourly wage work | offers the same perks as entry-level development roles at | facebook with regards to paid sick leave. | roywiggins wrote: | > 3-3.5 weeks of work at a McDonalds | | Sure, if you don't pay for rent, food, or transportation | to work. | matthewmacleod wrote: | Alas, still no cure for Stockholm Syndrome. | buescher wrote: | This example is totally unrealistic. In the USA someone | supporting themselves working at McDonalds would qualify | for Medicaid and have essentially no out-of-pocket | medical expenses. | cjrp wrote: | > 3-3.5 weeks of work at a McDonalds | | With a broken limb (which is presumably why you required | the X-ray in the first place)? | ljp_206 wrote: | The fact that we have better health infrastructure in | most places worldwide than ever before in human history | is true. But saying a surprise, out-of-the-blue 2.5k | medical bill can be taken care of by working nearly a | month at McDonalds without factoring the high cut of that | wage that goes to living is facile at best and cruel at | worst. | db48x wrote: | True, but it's also more complex than that. I don't know | the story here, but the $69k bill sounds like he went to a | hospital to get treated. | | Hospital prices in the US are always lies; his insurance | company probably paid around $10k in total and perhaps even | less than that. Of course the insurance company doesn't | generally tell their customers exactly how much they | actually paid the hospital. He could have gotten a more | reasonable bill by asking the hospital for the cash price | for everything, writing them a check for that amount, and | then getting reimbursed by his insurance company. It might | still have been more than his out-of-pocket limit, in which | case he still would have paid the $2,500. | | But his real mistake was probably going to the hospital in | the first place. He probably should have gone to his | Primary Care Physician or to an Urgent Care Clinic. Either | one of them can admit him to a hospital if it turns out to | be necessary, but it probably would not have been. I see in | another comment that he needed an X-Ray, a CT scan, and | some medication. He could have gotten all of that at an | urgent care clinic for $1,000 or so, and slept in his own | bed that night. | | It pays to shop around, and you can do so _before_ you get | hurt. | | Finally, don't forget that in addition to the $2,500 he | paid, he also paid his insurance company even in years that | he wasn't injured or ill. Likewise, you pay taxes every | year and part of that goes to pay for healthcare, even if | you aren't actually injured or ill. | Dylan16807 wrote: | $10k is still a ridiculous amount. | jhallenworld wrote: | I was just in the ER in SouthWest Florida: $12K for two | CT-scans and blood tests over two days, basically to | check if I was having appendicitis (I did not- probably | infection from prior kidney stone). No overnight stay, | but two visits over two days. $12K is the initial bill to | my insurance company, so not sure what they will actually | receive. | yazaddaruvala wrote: | I had a similar ER visit for "possible appendicitis". It | turned out to be a sprained psoas. | | I've since had it again, but was more aware of what to | feel for and didn't seek out the ER. Might be worth it to | keep in mind if you have something similar again. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psoas_major_muscle | db48x wrote: | I agree. That's why most of the time you shouldn't visit | a hospital; you can get the same work done elsewhere for | much less money. | its_ethan wrote: | So how much should it cost? And how do you arrive at that | number? | fesoliveira wrote: | In Brazil an x-ray exam will cost you no more than 90 | BRL, or less than 20 USD in todays rate. And this is out | of the pocket, without insurance. If a 3rd world country | can have affordable healthcare, why should having minor | health complications be synonym to bankruptcy in the | richest country in the world? | db48x wrote: | I live in one of the highest-priced areas of the US, and | a simple x-ray exam costs about $200 whether you have | insurance or not. The difference in price is primarily | due to the higher cost of living here than in Brazil; the | tech who takes the x-ray and the doctor who looks at it | to diagnose the problem get paid more here than there. I | should know; I got hit by a car last year and sprained my | thumb when I hit the ground. The x-ray was to check that | the thumb was only sprained, and not broken. | | But if you go to a hospital to get the same thing you | will pay 10x as much or more. You'll also have to wait a | lot longer, as anyone with a more serious complaint will | get prioritized ahead of you. Both of these are reasons | why people should not generally visit the hospital, | unless they have a problem which is immediately life- | threatening, or they are admitted to the hospital by | their primary-care physician. | | > why should having minor health complications be synonym | to bankruptcy in the richest country in the world? | | It's not. For all of the problems that our health-care | system may or may not have, people don't go bankrupt | because they needed an x-ray. | kube-system wrote: | There is no good reason the US can't bring down | healthcare costs, but there are also some not so good | reasons that some countries have very cheap healthcare. | its_ethan wrote: | Genuine question, how are you so confident that reducing | prices from current levels wouldn't cause unintended | consequences like causing innovation to stifle, hiring to | become more difficult, or health infrastructure to | degrade? You can point to other countries having lower | prices, sure, but just like you said - there are plenty | of reasons why other countries can be cheaper than in the | US. | kube-system wrote: | Because we have inefficiencies that are baked into the | status quo. Insurers, for example, provide little value | to health outcomes. Their purpose is purely financial, | and there are much more simple ways to shift that money | around that requires less administrative overhead, and | allows prices to be set by better methods than threats by | insurers, which is basically how they're set now. | phkahler wrote: | It should not cost more than a pair of shoes. They used | to use x-rays to check fit at the shoe stores - for free. | its_ethan wrote: | You mean back in the 1930s when you stuck your foot in a | _wooden_ box with an open X-ray tube and got yourself and | nearby customers exposed to radiation at a significantly | higher dose than even a full torso x-ray in modern times? | Okay, my guy... | marcodiego wrote: | Your own x-ray machine... This is on my list of "do not try this | at home". | candiodari wrote: | Why not do tomography instead? Uses infrared radiation mostly, so | it's less harmful than looking at a fire. | habi wrote: | Classic tomography does _not_ necessarily use IR light. One | needs radiation that penetrates the object to be imaged, hence | X-rays. | TomK32 wrote: | He just could move to Canada or Europe and avoid insane hospital | bills. Just saying. | jedimastert wrote: | > He just could move to Canada or Europe | | You know it consistently baffled me that someone can look at a | person who struggles to pay a hospital bill and think that | moving to a different country is a viable option. | 28uwedj wrote: | When the moving cost is 1/100th of the hospital bill. really? | this baffles you? it's an investment. | txcan wrote: | And wait for 100 years to get their free X-ray done in Canada ? | TillE wrote: | I got an MRI (way more complicated than an x-ray) done in | Berlin in about a week, for no charge, on public health | insurance. | | But sure, defend an objectively insane system because it's | what you're used to. | fesoliveira wrote: | I don't know where did you get such information, but it takes | a few days of wait at most in Canada to get an X-ray. | deltaonefour wrote: | I'm weirded out by the number of people on HN defending the | US medical system. As someone living in the US mayself, | everyone is well aware how crazy the medical system is, but | in this thread there's a large number of people trying to | justify 69k for an "expert" pushing a button to zap you with | rays. | kube-system wrote: | It's a system that needs some changes, but also, the bill | wasn't for an x-ray and nobody paid $69k. | deltaoneseven wrote: | The first thing wrong with the system is that number. | 69k. Even if nobody paid 69k. Who made up that BS number | and for what insidious purpose? | kartoolOz wrote: | Single X-ray session costs 4$ in my state in India | hackmiester wrote: | Yes, but unfortunately modern medical billing practices have | not yet come to Osman's home country. | brezelgoring wrote: | He's American, it probably costs him thousands just to book it. | | I'm from a third world hellhole and it costs me just 8 bucks to | do it. | [deleted] | mcntsh wrote: | For anyone layman who wants to mess around with radioactive | technology, I recommend reading about the "Goiania accident"[1] | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Comparing screwing around with dental xray equipment (or any | x-ray equipment really) to distributing the radioactive bits of | chemotherapy equipment across a neighborhood is like saying "be | careful, you wouldn't want to accidentally blow up a government | office building" every time someone starts talking about plant | fertilizer or lecturing someone who's installing 12v car audio | about transformer substation safety practices. The magnitude | difference between the subjects is so big it constitutes a | qualitative difference even if there is a common element. | | Not every discussion about something in the physical world | needs to start with a low effort comment about how you can die | by cranking it to 11 and then abusing it. | ultimape wrote: | In the context of buying used hospital equipment and the | concerns of a layman making a mistake due to the very | confusion you highlight... Seems at least relevant. | WinterMount223 wrote: | An x ray lamp is not radioactive unless you are eating bananas. | jjoonathan wrote: | Anyone who thinks these are comparable should withhold | judgement until they learn more about how different kinds of | "radiation" work. It's an overloaded term. | | X-rays generated by slamming accelerated electrons into a metal | plate turn off immediately once power is removed. There is no | residual radioactive decay, because there were no unstable or | decaying isotopes at any point in the process. It's not a | nuclear process. It does not involve the nucleus. | | In contrast, the Goiania accident was the result of beta | radiation from a pile of decaying Cesium 137 that could only be | contained, not turned off. | kumarvvr wrote: | X-Rays are not "radioactive technology", they are application | of high energy particle physics. | | Please don't spread around misinformation. | | Once the power is off, there is no more radiation from the | internals of an X-Ray Machine. | | Heck, we have portable X-Ray dental cameras now. | | They are still dangerous, but orders of magnitude lesser than | true radioactive elements. | kashunstva wrote: | I don't understand the connection between the cost of | hospitalization and a DIY 2d x-ray machine. Where exactly do you | go with that? The article states that he underwent an abdominal | CT, but of course that's not what he built. Probably a good | thing, too, as whatever radiation he's emitting would have been | substantially higher. I'm just confused about the motivation. | There are lots of costs embedded in procedure pricing - some | legitimate, some less so. Heaven forbid he goes into hospital and | has to have an MRI. I can't imagine the monstrosity that would | result from that DIY project. | dekhn wrote: | You are right to question the narrative. These days it's common | for news articles to play this kind of trick. There are just a | lot of hidden costs the DIY youtuber is ignoring. | deltaonefour wrote: | He's right to question the narrative but absolutely insane | not to question the 69k cost. | | That xray is not worth 69k. It's a literal crime that the | hospital charges that much. | dekhn wrote: | have you run a major medical center? Acquired an x-ray | machine? Operated it (and paid the staff) for 10 years? | | if you haven't done that, I'm not sure you have the | experience to say how much an x-ray should cost. | wbear wrote: | you're right about the hidden costs not mentioned in the | article. He stayed at the hospital for 2 days, consulted | with doctors, and received medication. this is why the | bill is so high. | | however, an x-ray should cost around $200. there's no | need for an "expert" medical billing administrator here, | $200 is double or triple the price of an x-ray in many | european countries, and many facilities in america (where | the youtuber lives) will charge less than $1000. | deltaoneseven wrote: | I know dog shit isn't worth 69k and nobody needs to | acquire a dog shit maker, and operate a dog shit maker | nor pay for the staff making a dog shit maker to know | that dog shit isn't worth 69k. Basic common sense. | | Maybe the above is a bad analogy. Put it this way. | | I've been to hospitals outside of the US and paid for | x-ray services. That's how I know. That's how Everyone | knows ... | | 69k a crime. | | What I don't understand is why there exists someone | defending something so obvious. Are you an X-ray | operator? | lbriner wrote: | It just sounds to me like a good story to introduce the | project. I suppose he is kind of saying "how can they charge | this much when I can build one of these at home". | tsol wrote: | Yeah it seems like an excuse to do the project. X-rays aren't | all that expensive, usually under $100. Maybe with a reading | by a radiologist it can go into the hundreds | buescher wrote: | There's an irony in the breathless "built his very own x-ray | machine" slant - x-rays are literally Victorian technology. Not | for the reckless or uninitiated I suppose, but I remember books | showing how to make x-ray devices from the wrong vacuum tubes and | spark coils and such. Probably by Alfred Morgan but I can't find | the reference now. Don't try any of this today, only bad things | will happen, right? | | To quote the more contemporary source below "Any person who | regularly works with any combination of high voltage and vacuum | should maintain a dosimetry program." | | http://www.belljar.net/xray.htm | | http://www.all-science-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projec... | Jeema101 wrote: | Yea exactly. Anyone with experience with electronics who is | willing to work with high voltage and has some knowledge of | vacuum tubes could probably make one. | | Side note: old TV rectifier tubes from the 1950s and 60s were | notoriously known for being x ray emitters, and were often made | with leaded glass or kept inside shielded enclosures | specifically because of the X-rays. So X-ray emitters were | literally in everyday standard consumer electronics back then! | Kind of crazy to think about these days... | willis936 wrote: | And the TVs themselves were three particle accelerators | steered by magnetic coils slamming voltage rails of a few kV | 15,750 times a second. The beams emitted X-Ray | Bremsstrahlung. In everyone's home. | | The last truly cool piece of physics in the house today is | the magnetron, which is pretty damn cool. | dekhn wrote: | My kitchen microwave kills any 2.4ghz wifi within 30 feet. | buescher wrote: | Exactly, indeed. One of the links I gave shows how to use a | 6BK4B rectifier tube for the purpose. No special X-ray tube | or glasswork required. Most of the high voltage parts can be | scavenged from old color tvs or monitors. Remember, though, | only bad things will happen and the inside of a color tv is | not a place of honor, no great deed is commemorated there, | nothing of value is stored there... | | Edit: that might sound tongue-in-cheek but please take it as | hahah, only serious. You can hurt yourself with these things, | you probably don't have a good reason to be experimenting | with them, and if you do need to learn how to work with high | voltage or ionizing radiation safely, this is not the place | and I am not teaching you. | teeray wrote: | Makes you wonder if that's where the whole "don't sit too | close to the TV" thing came from | karmicthreat wrote: | Kreosan also did something similar and far less safely. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shV2qoZShV0 | Spivak wrote: | I pay cash for a lot of my medical care thanks to my HSA and this | is exorbitant but but not insane assuming it's about 2x thanks to | the insurance premium which you would never pay yourself. The | subject is sweeping under the rug the two nights in the hospital | which is for sure the bulk of the cost -- two days in the | hospital is expensive as hell. Lots of hospitals bill by the half | hour and an 8 hour overnight is about $10k when paying cash. | msandford wrote: | I can't figure out in what way $1000/hr is tethered to any kind | of reality. The bed and room don't cost that much. Nursing | doesn't come close. The doctors tend to bill you separately for | their services. | | I get that isn't the game here. But most games are based on | some kind of reality. This one seems completely disconnected. | [deleted] | gaze wrote: | It isn't. It's totally and completely arbitrary. It's a | classic example of "priced what the market will bear." | yardie wrote: | Your $1000/hr bill is really covering 5 other indigent | hospital patients who can't financially cover the care the | hospital is legally required to give. Rather than design a | medical system that works for everyone no matter their | finances we'd rather stick it to the middle class (the rich | go to very different hospitals) since they have the most to | lose and are the weakest to negotiate. | | Also, socialism. | qgin wrote: | The rich go to very different hospitals? | yardie wrote: | Yes, in my city there is a trauma 1, a few trauma 3s, and | multiple hospitals who have no ER at all. T1 is downtown, | surrounded by homeless encampments, and is perpetually | broke. By city charter T1 cannot file for bankruptcy | protection and cannot turn away anyone seeking emergency | treatment. T3 and outpatient hospitals are in rich | suburbs, no homeless camps, and the parking lot is full | of luxury cars. They also cannot do most emergency | services and will send you to T1. | | The overnight stay in the T1 is $10k for a grimey room | while the T3s are closer to $3k-5k before insurance. I've | volunteered at both types and it is night and day | difference in the staff and the patients. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | There's a Voyager episode about this. | fatnoah wrote: | My roommate's bill for my own 5 day, $24k hospital stay was | $0. My after-insurance cost was $2k, though I negotiated | that down to $800 that I was able to pay off over a year | (grad student on a stipend). Initially I was a little | bitter about my roommate getting a freebie due to lack of | insurance, but I eventually learned some compassion. In his | case, he was unemployed and couldn't work due to a back | injury. | | So, we end up in this situation where those who have | insurance subsidize those who don't. Many people who are ok | with this are very much against an identical arrangement | where the government is involved. | greenonions wrote: | It's because it's the cash price. Medicare and Medicaid | reimbursements are significantly less, so in order to make | budgets make any sense, the bills that can be increased, | increase enough to cover all of the others. | | Even employer sponsored insurance will get significant | discounts on that price. | dboreham wrote: | They're protecting us from socialism. | LanceH wrote: | Medical care is equally far from capitalism. | jandrese wrote: | Depends if you are going with the book definition of | capitalism or just "more money for rich people". | cfcosta wrote: | And that's why you don't get your term definitions from | people that don't understand it. | kumarvvr wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiJAq53knwc | | The link to the video. | cmckn wrote: | I can't get past the paywall on the article, but how exactly did | he get a bill for an X-ray that totaled $69,000? Much more | advanced diagnostics, like CT scans, MRI's, etc. cost a tenth of | this. | | edit: quick google says a full-body X-ray should run you | somewhere around $1,100 without insurance: | https://health.costhelper.com/x-rays.html | db48x wrote: | Apparently it was an x-ray, a CT scan, some medication, and two | nights in a hospital bed. That's the real problem. Hospitals | are great if you have been in a car accident and could die at | any moment, but terrible for anything else. | | In particular, hospitals in the US are well-known for lying | about their prices. You'll get a bill for some ridiculous | amount, and your insurance will negotiate it down to something | more reasonable. Of course they don't negotiate prices on a | case-by-case basis; instead the large insurance companies | negotiate "bulk discounts" ahead of time. It is unlikely that | his insurance paid more than $10k. Ironically he probably could | have paid even less if he had asked for the cash prices at the | hospital, and then gotten reimbursed by his insurance. | | But even that is too much. If he had gone to his primary-care | physician or an urgent-care clinic he probably would have paid | a tenth of that or less, plus he could have slept in his own | bed. | emkoemko wrote: | why are hospitals charging money? | tinybrotosaurus wrote: | Because they provide a service? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-24 23:00 UTC)