Shoe-store Fluoroscope!

I

imp

Senior Member
Since we are, many of us, products of the '40s and '50s here, I submit this image, asking if any recall the device in their early lives. It is a shoe-fitting fluoroscope machine, marketed and sold in the U.S., perhaps also overseas, intended primarily to allow accurate fitting of childrens' shoes. At least 10,000 were made and distributed to shoe stores. Most were made by Adrian X-Ray Co. of Wisconsin.


adrian10.jpg


The view shown is from the operator's side, the viewing tubes seen intended for the salesman, a parent, and the smaller tube opposite, the child being "examined". Thus, the kids not only received radiation exposure up through their feet, legs, and torso, but also up into the eyes and head. From the opposite side, the child stepped up onto a small platform built in, inserted his/her feet into a slot, the X-ray tube being mounted below, within the structure. A fluoroscopic screen, illuminated by the X-rays, displayed the bones of the feet, the nails/hard features of the shoes, and lessly, the softer, fleshy parts of the feet encapsulated within the shoes.

Sold from 1920s on through about 1950, the machines were an exceedingly popular feature of the shoe-store experience. I know. I was a "victim", as a kid. I interrupt my story now hoping for comment. More to come later. imp
 

Yep. It's a wonder we don't all have bone cancer.

My mum was a shoe saleswoman and she checked my shoes with her hands and thank God she did. I've never had to suffer ill fitting shoes with the exception of a period when I wore stilettos. My 72 year old feet are still in good nick.
 
I remember one of those in the 1950's, operated by a shop assistant who in the days before 'health & safety' probably knew nothing about X-rays. I doubt if a single dose of radiation did us much harm, but I think a lot of the operators went on to develop a range of illnesses.
 

I remember those machines and were used a couple of times when I needed new shoes. They DID insure a proper fit.

The exposure time was no worse than dental X-rays. Bad for the "operator"/shoe sale person, however.
 
Last edited:
I remember them, but I don't remember an operator.. I remember it being in the shoe store and just being able to stick my feet in and press a button.. and then look at my bones. Fascinating for a kid!!
 
Most shoe stores where we got shoes when I was a kid had those and like QS,I don`t remember there being an operator. I was born in 1950 so I`m thinking they must have been around until at least 1955 or so...
 
"The exposure time was no worse than dental X-rays."

For comparison purposes: Two things associated with "X-Ray strength" are the beam voltage and the beam current. Beam voltage determines the "hardness" of the radiation, or it's "penetrability", it's wavelength. Beam current determines the intensity of the radiation.

Beam voltage of the shoe-fitting machines was usually 50,000 to 60,000 volts, with beam currents of 5 to 10 milliamperes. An average dental X-ray back then used about 90,000 volts, and around 5 milliamperes. So, given equal exposure times, the dental X-ray was somewhat more "dangerous" to health. However, exposure time is where the real difference lies, and it's a serious difference.

Dental X-ray exposure time back then was on the order of 1 second. The shoe-fitter in many cases operated for as long as 20 seconds, or longer. The makers of the machine knew full-well of the dangers, but revenue production won out, of course. Some later machines even had a time-limiting switch which allowed exposure for only a predetermined maximum time, how long, I do not know, but surely less than 1/2 minute. Many machines over the years were "jury-rigged" by electricians hired by the stores, during repair or maintenance work. (The early ones had Coolidge X-ray tubes of poorer quality glass, which darkened fairly quickly, requiring tube replacement). Thus, safety and limiting devices were sometimes removed from the circuitry. Fluoroscopy of this nature was always the less-preferred method of peering into the human body, over single-exposure film-type shots.

I can vividly recall our store's young salesman, Milton, telling me to "wiggle your toes", as my Mother & I watched in fascination. Shoes containing nails (common then) were especially intriguing. By the time stores were ordered to discontinue their use, I was already well-versed in Science and electronic principles, and here is how I come to be quite intimately familiar with these machines: The store wanted it removed, I asked for it, and the owner GAVE it to me! I was then about 15. I dismantled the cabinet in the back of the store as necessary, and hauled it home piecemeal the 3 blocks to our house. During ensuing months, I mounted the X-ray tube in it's lead enclosure on a shelf in the storage romm at the front of our basement. The wall facing the basement proper was 87-inch thick brick, which supported the front porch above. I chiseled out a single brick-width to allow the rays to pass into the basement, the fluorescent screen being mounted on a table on the "safe" side of the wall. It was there that hands, the cat, the canary, etc. were examined internally. Knowing radiation strength decreased as the square of the distance from it's source, I once carried the screen out in darkness all the way into the back yard, perhaps 60 feet, and the screen still shown faintly! From then on, operations were curtailed to almost none, as I feared permanent health damage.

How harmful were they to kids? Maybe more so than we really care to know, now that the harm is long ago done. Presently, I know a guy who located a machine, incomplete, and he is rebuilding it. Mine? I destroyed it when I left the Chicago area, not wishing to include it's great weight in a 2000 mile move. I will be glad to answer any other questions or comments regarding my experiences with the device. imp
 
How interesting! I`ve always thought I`ve had way too many xrays in my life (lots of broken bones) but never even thought about all the shoe fitting xrays. What kind of harm do you think these machines may have done to kids?
 
"What kind of harm do you think these machines may have done to kids?"

The chief concern of radiation damage is to any type of human cell structure that is rapidly multiplying, such as reproductive cells, or myelogenic cells within the bone marrow. As I moved about my business of experimenting with my new-found source of interest, I feared even at an early age of reproductive cell damage (though I couldn't even imagine raising children!). The machine itself, built of a hardwood cabinet, likely oak, and having a reasonable amount of lead-sheet shielding, failed to limit radiation exposure upwards through the cabinet, and thus, through the entire bodies of the observers. I took some of the lead sheet lining which had been within the cabinet, since that was discarded since the working "guts" were located in our storeroom, and fashioned a "shield", triangular-shaped, the size of a pie-plate, bent over with a "lip" on top, which I hung on the top of my pants belt, thus shielding my groin area. This contrivance I employed whenever I fired-up the unit. I do not think my parents, basically simple immigrants of European descent, understood at all the gravity of my exploits. They welcomed my interest in the Sciences.

I can see now that, given possession of one of these machines would be a most valuable proposition. What does a teen-ager see of the future? I remember the final disposal of the components, The big, heavy, transformer, perhaps 70 lbs., the Coolidge X-ray tube, which I smashed out back in the garbage, and the feeling of wonderment whether I was doing wrong. Too late. Trash hauled away, I left my birthplace for a new life out West, at age 30, and here you are reading of it! imp
 
SeaBreeze said:
Interesting Imp, I don't recall seeing any of those as a child.
Click to expand...

Where did you live, and how old were you in ~ 1955? Those are the prerequisites, in addition to living in a very-populated area, I would guess as being the determining factor regarding presence of one of the diabolical machines! imp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top