Cherry angioma, is the body Detoxing
Before you read on be aware that i'm just collecting information, and came across this by chance. I'm not an expert in this field medical/chemical and so i'm just here to see if there is anything i might learn.
My question is, since there are several of us, experimenting with different chemicals, is there a larger number of darkroom workers who might have cherry angiomas from the body trying to detox?
might be a silly question, but i'm just wondering.
Potassium/sodium bromide has been used for many, many years as a calmative and sleep inducer. It was an ingredient in many patent medicines such as Bromo-Seltzer and Bromo-Quinine cold tablets. People routinely ingested moderate amounts of it over many years with no ill effects. The use of bromides was discontinued in human medicine in 1975 due to the difficulty in determining proper dosage. They are still used in veterinary medicine. Neither of these two compounds is absorbed thru the skin so there is no danger in dermal contact from this source. Iodides are used in such low concentration in photography that they pose no threat.
As far as cherry angiomas are concerned I know people who have had them who have never been exposed to photographic solutions. Doctors really do not what cause them. There may be a genetic predisposition toward their formation. There are a lot of alarmist or quack sites on the internet. If you are concerned consult a dermatologist.
How to determine a quack medicine site -- they like to bandy about such words as "detox". Anyone with a healthy liver does not have to worry about detoxification. That is what the liver does normally. No need for special herbs, teas, or diets or other snake oil.
Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 05-30-2013 at 11:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.
~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Sounds like the writer of that blog has a case of Googleitis.
Not to say that this isn't true but too many people think that, if they find it on Google, it must be true.
I've got several of cherry hemangiomas on my arms and legs. Have had them for years. Long before I started developing film regularly.
I was also a lifeguard on the beach for almost five years. I spent hours in the sun every day. I often got really nasty sunburn. If I attribute their appearance to anything it would have to be damage from too much sun.
If they get to be bothersome, I just use a pair of cuticle scissors and cut them off.
First, hold an ice cube against the skin until the area gets numb then, SNIP!
Cherry angianomas can often proceed to melanoma. They need 6/12 checking by a dermatologist (very easily removed), definitely. DO NOT rely on Google for the correct information.
(Source: my own history of cherry angionomas, dysplastic naevii and early-stage melanoma from both types of lesions.)
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
I never get medical information from a site not run by a real medical facility. MayoClinic has a site that's really good.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
The internet can be a dangerous place to obtain medical information.
Originally Posted by mesantacruz
Interesting, medical advice and information from a website called "Cheeseslave."
My father had cherry angiomas and never got near a darkroom. They appeared about the time he turned 50. Gee, guess what? I have them too. They appeared about the time I turned 50. We both started experiencing high blood pressure about the same time.
Welcome to middle age.
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.
Originally Posted by emedicine.medscape.com
Google is not an information source. It's an index. It may point you to the Mayo Clinic's site, it may point you to Starshine Moon Bow's Xanga.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
Google doesn't vet, filter, certify, or curate content. It's just a conduit. To say 'don't trust Google for information' is the same as saying 'don't trust books for information.'
The camera is the most incidental element of photography.
Exactly what I was going to post after reading the headline. All those special herbs and cleanses they want you to take may not be safe. They certainly aren't tested for safety or efficacy.
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch