Talk:X-ray vision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should someone incorporate this into it?[[1]]

<<While there are devices currently extant which can "see" through clothing, these are quite bulky and it is unlikely that any "X-ray goggles" could be made with modern technology.>>

What does "extant" mean? 64.192.107.242 01:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

wiktionary:Extant. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question that wasn't answered here. In sci-fi uses of X-ray vision, such as James Bond, Superman, etc., first, is there a limitation on the range of x-ray vision, and second, can prolonged exposure create detrimental effects, like cancer? Kevin 06:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer the "range" question, but the "exposure" question is rather interesting. As noted in the article, Superman's X-ray vision generated heat, suggesting that Superman himself was the source of the X-rays. However, this would also suggest that in order to see through things, there would have to be something behind the object he's looking at/through to reflect his rays back to his eyes. After the Byrne revamp in 1986, it seemed that Superman's X-ray vision was merely the ability to visually perceive frequencies outside the normal human range, so there is no additional radiation present -- he's merely taking advantage of natural sources. HalJor 23:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised there is no mention of the fact that human eyes receive light, not transmit it, in order to see. When an x-ray is taken in a medical environment, you have an x-ray emitter on one side of the object, and film on the other. If a fictional character had x-ray vision that is transmissive, all they can do is bathe something in radiation, not see through it. If that character had x-ray vision that is receptive, they would need to have a source of x-rays on the other side of the object they are looking at, in order to see the contents. With normal vision, you can see because light from an external source strikes objects and "reflects" so the reflected light enters the eye. In the case of x-rays, they are notable because they don't strike surfaces like visible light does -- they can penetrate a bit deeper, and are sometimes absorbed completely (lead). If humans had eyes that could also emit white light, we could see anything we want without need of a source, but if someone were to have eyes that can both transmit and receive x-rays, it would still be useless because there are few materials that reflect x-rays so they can be observed in the same manner as visible light. That is to say, you're still dependent on an x-ray source on the opposite side of the object. - MHoward