🚀 go-pugleaf

Ken Kobayashi wrote:
> 
> sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk (Simon Slavin) writes:
> >In article <1996Sep6.1...@hpal02.isd4.tafensw.edu.au>,
> >Roger....@tafensw.edu.au (Roger Douglas) wrote:

> >> true I can see Xerox being up for a major class action from 1970s
> >> office workers blaming everything from brain cancer to ingrowing
> >> toenails on the radiation from photocopiers.
> 
> >Not unless they were photocopying body-parts.

What, you think that doesn't happen? :-)

> > The weighted lid which
> >was used to hold paper flat against the glass in those days almost
> >always had a lot of metal in it -- usually a metal sheet.  Possibly
> >for the very reason you just pointed-out.

Possibly, but most likely because metal is heavy, and they wanted to
hold the paper in place (i.e., keep it from slipping, not just flatten
it out).

> Did they have any warnings about using that lid every time?

Well, yes...but it's to protect your eyes.  The only radiation coming
from a photocopies is called "visible light".  The warnings would be no
real protection in court if they were giving off X-rays; they'd have to
build copiers the way they build microwaves.

>  Or how a photocopier can produce x-rays?

Never mind how, how about *why*? X-rays take a huge amount of energy,
and X-raying a piece of paper that you're trying to copy seems a little
silly--you *know* it's all going to go through.  :-)

If photocopiers gave off X-rays, Xerox would have been sued into
oblivion decades ago.  Xerox is still in business; therefore
photocopiers do not give off X-rays.  QED.  :-)

/================================================================\
|John Francis Stracke| http://www.thibault.org  | PGP key on Web |
|fra...@thibault.org|===========================================|
|Power Mac w/PPP     | My strength is as the strength of ten     |
|My Mac, my opinions.|  because my code is pure.                 |
\================================================================/