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.