this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2026
844 points (98.3% liked)

memes

22745 readers
4332 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads/AI SlopNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Just in case anybody is stupid enough to believe this, there was nothing radioactive in old CRT-based TVs. And they sometimes had black cases but weren't a "black box".

They worked by bending a beam of electrons that hit phosphors in the screen, which is cool enough that saying stupid BS about "radioactive" is unnecessary.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

beam of electrons

Let's say it cooler: they were particle accelerators you pointed at your face.

Also, massive glass vacuum bottles that could implode if mishandled.

And with massive capacitors that could electrocute you if mishandled.

And heavy enough to seriously crush your foot (and possibly implode and electrocute you) if mishandled.

And the static electricity felt really neat on the back of your hand if you put it close to the screen.

They were so fucking cool, and we took them for granted, and now they're gone, and life is significantly less cool without them.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

But by fuck was their capacity to put out a clear image mid. But their screen size on the other hand …extremely limited

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

TVs, maybe¹. CRT monitors, though? They were great. And mostly didn't care about what resolution you threw at them.

  1. It's a big maybe, though. Live TV? Sure, but that was more on the extremely low resolution signal than on the screen (HDTV would've looked great on a CRT). But games? They were fantastic for games, though. Artists designed their images with CRT's natural blur on mind, and now we need complex filters and at least a 4K monitor to replicate the original look.

[–] Tabula_stercore@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 hours ago

First one is from Final Fantasy 6, second one from Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

And heavy enough to seriously crush your foot (and possibly implode and electrocute you) if mishandled.

Sometimes. Other times they were little portable things.

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

I mean, sure. But even this little 4'' “pocket” thing, for instance, still weighed 1.2Kg... that's a damn dense (and expensive) brick to drop on a toe...

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 hours ago

1.2 kg isn't very much, especially for a dense piece of electronics.

If you look at the history of iMac computers, when they went from CRTs to flat screens they only dropped 6 kg from 15.7 kg to 9.6 kg. Since then they've focused on making them lighter and lighter, but it's not like the CRT was the majority of the weight.

[–] lichtmetzger@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

CRTs can emit X-Rays, but they are properly shielded so they never leave the tube.

The X-Ray scare mostly came from a line of GE TV's in 1968 that had improper shielding and had to be recalled.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Radioactivity and X-Rays are tangentially related, but they're not at all the same thing.

[–] Equinox1289@sh.itjust.works 9 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

One is from a decaying material and the other is from controlled electron beam, but they are both radiation emitters. People are just more familiar with the term radioactive and think it is the catch-all term for a source of radiation.

The electron gun in a tv and in an xray machine are pretty similar and without shielding, you will still get hit with radiation even if it isn't strictly radioactive, but rather another type of radiation emitter.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

One is from a decaying material

Specifically radioactive decay.

the other is from controlled electron beam

So, not radioactivity.

Radiation is a really vague term. It's just energy moving in the form of waves or particles. Sunlight is radiation. Radio waves are radiation. Microwaves are radiation. Wifi is radiation.

Radiation can be dangerous in a few ways. Something can be very bright and blind you, or it can cause you to heat up too much. X-rays are an example of ionizing radiation, that's dangerous because it can break apart molecular bonds, causing damage to cells. That's why you can get skin cancer from ultraviolet radiation. X-rays are a shorter wavelength than ultraviolet light, so there's more potential cellular damage per photon.

But, radioactivity is dangerous not just because of X-rays, but primarily because of alpha and beta particles, and because of even higher energy particles like gamma particles / rays.

So, just because there's one type of ionizing radiation that can come from a CRT-TV that is also peripherally associated with radioactive decay doesn't mean that there's any connection between a TV and radioactivity.

That would be like saying that an atomic bomb causes a huge explosion, and a fertilizer bomb also causes a huge explosion, so a fertilizer bomb is a nuke.

[–] Squirrelanna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 17 hours ago

This isn't me arguing against you because I know very little about the difference. But when I started reading I thought this was a Unidan copypasta 😂

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Someone not knowing there's a difference between "radiation" and "radioactivity" doesn't make them stupid.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

No, just ignorant. Very ignorant.

[–] Tiger_Man_@szmer.info 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

they did emit x rays but most of them was blocked by the leaded glass

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 3 points 17 hours ago

Barium glass.

Leaded glass was only used for the rear of the tube (or amber monochrome displays), the front glass was barium infused for colour CRTs.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 23 hours ago

Radioactivity and X-Rays are tangentially related, but they're not at all the same thing.

[–] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

I like this comment except for the fact it seems needlessly hostile