early radiologists thought calling the hideous, full-depth, sometimes fatal ultrasunburns they produced in themselves and patients "burns" was a bad idea and was a smear on x-rays, and that the delayed action meant the phenomenon should instead be called "X-ray dermatitis."
they theorized that the burns were due to electricity – after all, the two new phenomena were intimately linked,to the point that there were proposals from early radiologists to rename them "electric rays" to reflect how important electricity was for their production. for PR purposes, basically. electricity can kill, and clearly x-rays are harmless, so it must be that electric fields or induced currents or inadvertent electrolysis are harming people.
they theorized that dust particles from the air or tube or skin, or immeasurably small bits of the cathode, or bacteria on the skin, were being blasted into the patient and harming them that way. an x-ray tube repels all the dust off it when it's turned on, surely that means the X-rays are applying enough force to drive dust into a patient.
they theorized it was injury from ozone production in the patient's tissue, or nitrous acid, or other chemicals. they theorized that the tubes must be defective, and producing x-rays with the capability to burn; a working tube wouldn't burn patients. they theorized that some people were just sensitive to X-rays, with most others being immune.
the vast majority of them were looking for an excuse that anything could be the culprit except the fantastic, revolutionary X-rays they had based their careers on. they avoided the most obvious explanation; it didn't help that the actual mechanism of damage (DNA photolysis) requires
this diversity of beliefs led to a diversity of protective measures. none of them worked. many early radiologists died of burns, or the cancer that followed. it took them eight years to begin to arrive at a consensus that X-rays inherently have the power to harm.
i still call them twitter-rays
