Are They Referring to X-Rays or ?????
 

What a crappy article full of assumptions and half truths :lmao::stupid:

The "Don't sit too close to the TV" phrase had more to do with the worry that focusing young eyes on a close image for extended periods of time might harm there development. Also not blocking the screen for other people.
The article's use of radioactive to describe a type of TV is not accurate, there was no radiation when the set was off. There was a problem with a tube and circuit used to regulate the HV. The tubes were redesigned to fix the problem. In all cases the X-rays were emitted pointed down from the bottom or out one of the sides, depending how the regulator tube was mounted.

While I agree that scientific testing and regulation of things that are found to be hazards is good, this article sloppily conflates ionizing and non-ionizing "radiation," feeding the conspiracy theory idiots' claims that cell towers cause cancer or even the current pandemic. The writer should be ashamed for not clarifying.

Also, the TV X-ray problem with defective regulator tubes was discovered and self-reported by GE, and all the government hearings, etc. occurred after remediation was already under way.

Most reporters have sub-highschool level understanding of science and physics so their annoying levels of technical ignorance are often baked in.

I will say though that I've always thought using the word radiation for ionizing radiation is bad for clarity to laymen. Heat and light are things that radiate and can be called radiation even though they are benign at natural levels...hey that's how we can get rid of the dumbest journalists and conspiracy theorists! All we gotta do is tell them light and heat are radiation and let them hide in a cold dark place till they expire. :D

Is there any truth to the rumor that GE's problem came about because GE didn't want to pay RCA royalties to use their 6BK4 and designed their own shunt regulators?

Another rumor I heard was that the x-ray problem was discovered because a GE set owner had a cat which liked to sleep under the TV and it started losing hair.

Any truth to either rumor?

One thing that caused problems is in the mid 60s some cheaper sets were barely or not shielding the shunt regulator tube RCA installed it inside the HV cage but other makes even some RCA clones mounted it outside the cage with a crummy little skirt of shielding that only caught some of the X rays.

Normal viewing distance for a 21" set was 10 or more and air and any material attenuates X-rays greatly so at normal viewing distance from even the worst set you wouldn't see worse than background X-ray levels.

If it was a real problem then all the retired TV repairmen on these forums that spent 8 hours a day right next to running sets wouldn't be here to tell you about it...

The medical instrument industry got smart and dropped the "nuclear" from "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging," once they realized that Joe Shmoe would always misinterpret what it was - the magnetic resonance of the nucleus, not nuclear radiation.

I work in that industry, and I don't see it in advertising/customer facing documents, but some of our proceedures and regulations documents are still keeping the nuclear in NMRI alive and well...

Say, Tom, do you work for GE or maybe a remnant of GE? I had an uncle who worked for GE medical in the Milwaukee area, many decades ago. He developed thyroid cancer and was treated with radiation, I always assumed from a GE device. He was cured, but the skin on his neck was permanently burned.

The EHT stabiliser valves (tubes) used in early CTVs are inherently Xray generators. 25kV on the anode and up to 1mA of current means that Xrays will be generated. It's a question of suitable shielding.

In UK and Europe we came relatively late to colour so only first generation sets had a shunt stabiliser (Mullard PD500).

X radiation from CRTs was sorted out by the time we had colour. Correct shadowmask materials and enough glass to stop the remaining radiation.

People have used the PD500 in home built Xray apparatus: http://www.kronjaeger.com/hv-old/xra...500/index.html

The mis-informed seem to always interchange ionizing and non ionizing radiation at will.

DIY X-Ray apparatus... Although that sounds fun, I'm not brave enough to try to pull that off.

No, a subsidiary of NAP...we sell to GE though and I've been to the local GE MRI campus to conduct tests.

They are shutting down the facility I work from so odds are I'll be going to some other industry soon.

So do most college professors, too, aparently. But I don't expect anything more from NYU...