Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,734   Online: 1027
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Don't ask us, ask your doctor.

  2. #12
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SE Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,539
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    From medscape...



    Guy's I know this is a photography forum where people are loathe to read, evaluate sources, and look at objective data but c'mon now. I realize this is a world where people will savage you if you suggest a Lubitel 166 is not as sharp as a Hassy 80mm Planar but really you can't carry that mentality over to the medical world. Leave the fantasies for photography debates.

    The only source of information you should be consulting is a specialist dermatologist on referral from your GP.
    Self-serve information has been shown to cause people anxiety and drive them poorly informed spurious conclusions, all because they are thinking the knowledge they trawl for and gain from the internet is better than a 20 minute consultation with a Doctor. It's not. This is a major problem being seen by Doctors the world over, "self-serve", including those who delve into PubMed, Medscale and university research journals. I note that the author of the article in Cheeseslave says "I am not a Doctor".... yet speculates wildly in all directions and seeks discourse. That discourse is speculative, conjectural, indirect and in a lot of places, heresay, towing the line of of populist opinion rather than proven science.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  3. #13

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    1. i'm not self diagnosing, given that i don't have any cherry angiomas.
    2. I was asking a simple yes or no question, a yes, meriting more of an explanation, not a tangent of the above point... sorry, but i didn't want an argument about 'to self diagnose or not'.
    3. 'correllation' is noted between bromine poisoning and angiomas... note that it does not say causation. I won't get a copy of the study, given that's it $32.
    4*. Set/setting (genes/environment) rule you're illnesses. It used to be that given your geography dictated what you ate. With mass globalization underway, this is less the case around the world. Note, the number of cancer rates going up in places, where this was such a small percentage before.

    what i was trying to get at with this is that, yes, some are predisposed (genetically) to be more sensitive, physically to our environment. It might be that those who work in direct (somewhat) contact to chemicals, are more likely to show a sign of it.

    Also note that the most probable cause of 'bromide toxicity' is probably BROMATED FLOUR, and not darkroom chemicals
    ... just thought i would ask though < a known carcinogen for mice (as far as the study went), banned in several countries, yet still used, although not as widespread... almost as bad as fluoride in water...


    What's weird is that if you look it up, it says that CA are not a known sign of internal malignancy, yet we know that everything has a cause. The body reacting with CA, i'm sure is not because it's extremely healthy, but instead a warning sign, like most bodily reactions.

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    Ok, here is a possible answer to your question! If bromide can be absorbed through the skin, then swimming in the ocean would be virtually fatal due to bromide poisoning. (Oh, chloride and iodide as well, but the iodide is so low it wouldn't matter). So, don't swim in the ocean.

    And, when you process film or paper, wear protective gloves like I do!

    PE

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by mesantacruz View Post
    what i was trying to get at with this is that, yes, some are predisposed (genetically) to be more sensitive, physically to our environment. It might be that those who work in direct (somewhat) contact to chemicals, are more likely to show a sign of it.

    Also note that the most probable cause of 'bromide toxicity' is probably BROMATED FLOUR, and not darkroom chemicals... just thought i would ask though < a known carcinogen for mice (as far as the study went), banned in several countries, yet still used, although not as widespread... almost as bad as fluoride in water...

    What's weird is that if you look it up, it says that CA are not a known sign of internal malignancy, yet we know that everything has a cause. The body reacting with CA, i'm sure is not because it's extremely healthy, but instead a warning sign, like most bodily reactions.
    You haven't posted anything to back any of this up. Discussing things in this manner without any peer reviewed published articles from reputable journals is worse than useless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    The only source of information you should be consulting is a specialist dermatologist on referral from your GP.
    GP's are trained to diagnose and treat all manner of common skin lesions. How many board certified dermatologists do you think are out there?

    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    Self-serve information has been shown to cause people anxiety and drive them poorly informed spurious conclusions, all because they are thinking the knowledge they trawl for and gain from the internet is better than a 20 minute consultation with a Doctor.
    Who ever said it is "better" than seeing a doctor? I live in the United States and we simply cannot afford to spend 20 minutes with a physician every time we come across something silly on the internet. I've been to a dermatologist and the guy did not talk to me for 20 minutes. The guy was a friend of my fathers. What 20/30 something year old guy is having 20 minute conversations with a physician?! They don't get paid enough to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour View Post
    This is a major problem being seen by Doctors the world over, "self-serve", including those who delve into PubMed, Medscale and university research journals.
    99.9% of people don't know what Pubmed is and couldn't identify a "university research journal." Pubmed would be a giant leap up from the "I read this in People Magazine" BS you usually hear. In fact what professionals use are peer reviewed research journals not "university research journals." My point stands. People need to learn to evaluate sources. In two seconds I was able to show from a decent source that what was being posted was garbage. I did not post a dissertation on the pathopysiology of Cherry angiomas. Or tell people how to diagnose them. You should be able to read something and figure out whether it is a DIY job or something that requires a physician. Yes there is gray area out there but it's not ALL gray area. It's irritating for physicians to have to spend their time answering questions a little common sense could easily take care of. As someone pointed out vague buzz words like "detox" should tell you the source isn't any good. You don't need a 20 minute consultation with a board certified specialist to figure that out.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    188
    Actually swimming in the ocean is a great thing for the body as denoted in the study below...

    http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitio...vys__et_al.pdf

    and here's the last i've read
    http://www.optimox.com/pics/Iodine/IOD-11/IOD_11.htm

    i'm sorry for veering so off topic, and asking such a general question, from a 'quack' website. although most of people don't believe in detoxing, given the pharmaceutical imposition in our medical economic sector, and their final word in all diseases, i find it hard to believe that given the prevalence of cherry angiomas, no one has done any real study to the real cause behind them. If one thing is for sure, it's that our body has it's own way of alarming of us of problems to come. why aren't they studied? - "given that they only rarely indicate internal malignancy." yeah, i don't think so, common sense says otherwise.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    What does any of this have to do with common sense?

    And cause and effect is often not so obvious... there's a reason we have tools like science.
    Last edited by Kirk Keyes; 06-05-2013 at 12:11 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    210
    "Common sense" is by definition unqualified as a basis for a medical diagnosis. There's a reason most people aren't doctors: the knowledge required is UNcommon.

    Common sense says the government can't spend more money than it makes.
    Common sense says liquid helium shouldn't climb out of open containers.
    Common sense says you should throw water on a fire on your stove.

    And in all of those cases, common sense is wrong.
    The camera is the most incidental element of photography.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin