< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 215 OF 215 ·
|Mar-04-14|| ||twinlark: <He was also dismissive of the question, and I presumed that was because no doctor likes to have their ignorance exposed or their advice questioned.>|
Isn't this generally true of pretty much any practicing professional?
|Mar-04-14|| ||Tiggler: <twinlark>:<Isn't this generally true of pretty much any practicing professional?>|
No, only M.D.s and politicians.
|Mar-04-14|| ||twinlark: - LOL !|
|Mar-04-14|| ||twinlark: But it was a serious question.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <no doctor likes to have their ignorance exposed or their advice questioned.>|
True enough. Unfortunately the medical culture encourages this behavior. Admitted mistakes have a way of suddenly circulating in the medical rumor mills. Most doctors I know hardly ever admit any mistake at all, or sometimes pretend to be know-it-alls. To admit errors or ignorance (which every human being is prone to) can actually damage one's reputation and practice.
In a way, a successful medical practice depends on one's 'cover'- PR and social and political connections. That makes doctors' culture similar to politicians' culture. There are very good doctors with poor private practice, and bad doctors with great private practice. Because of extraneous factors.
Just a case in point. If you are a doctor whose family owns a private hospital, no way are you going to have a poor private practice should you decide to practice in that hospital.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor: <no doctor likes to have their ignorance exposed or their advice questioned.>|
True enough. Unfortunately the medical culture encourages this behavior.>
This is the essence of the problem. Who ever heard of an medical whistleblower, unless it was as a highly paid witness for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit. And those guys never work again, except as witnesses!
Actually I left out law-enforcement professionals, including judges, from my previous list.
The thing they have in common with medics and politicians is a sense of power over their "clients". Lawyers, auto-mechanics and financial advisers are invariably deferential to those who pay their bills.
Professors often don't get it, but I was never one of that type, because it betrays the scientific culture to assert authority over reality.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor> I am glad, but not surprised, that you do not chose to take offense at my criticism of the medical profession. Of course, I knew you would not take it personally, but nevertheless one could be offended by a criticism of one's profession.|
I am glad to confess that this is a prejudice on my part. We all have them. Lawyers must be used to the opprobrium heaped on their profession, but I personally have no problem with them, in general.
|Mar-04-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Tiggler> I don't take offense at all. But then I am regarded as a kind of maverick. At any rate, as uncomfortable as it may be, there is truth in what you are saying.|
<Boomie: Causes run the gamut from ignorance to negligence. One of the early casualties was Marie Curie.>
When Marie Curie began investigating radioactivity, it was not known at all that it could cause cancers and blood dyscrasias. I think it was only during the US atom bomb project that it became definitively clear that radiation can be harmful to health, as cases of acute radiation poisoning occurred.
The problem I think is that radiation induced diseases often occur decades after the initial exposure. The same applies to smoking and the belated conclusion that it could cause cancer. Until the beginning of the Vietnam war, I think that US soldiers were given rations of cigarettes.
In addition, I think before WW2, average life span was significantly shorter than at present times, because antibiotics were discovered only during WW2. More people died of infectious diseases earlier in their lives. I do not know what the average lifespan of people were in 1910 but if we assume it was around 50, and it takes 30 years for most radiation-induced cancers to manifest, even those exposed in their 20s would probably be dead of other causes before the potential cancers could manifest clinically.
BTW, I believe that this is one of the reasons why wild life in the Chernobyl exlusion zone does not seem to be affected much in terms of their population growth. The average lifespan of wild mammals is probably less than a decade. Even if it were three decades, radiation induced cancers would not affect them before most of them died of other natural causes.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Tiggler: <I do not know what the average lifespan of people were in 1910 but if we assume it was around 50, and it takes 30 years for most radiation-induced cancers to manifest, even those exposed in their 20s would probably be dead of other causes before the potential cancers could manifest clinically.>|
There are two types of radiation induced cancers that appear earlier (so far as I know): thyroid, within 1-5 years, and leukemia, often within ten years. I think animals, mammals anyway, are affected by both of these.
After the Chernobyl accident it was reported that thyroid cancer incidence in children met or exceeded expectation, but that excess leukemia cases seemed to be unexpectedly absent. The expectations were based on Japanese bomb survivors, who received their doses in a very short exposure.
With regard to life expectancy, 50 years is very short, characteristic of the early part after the industrial revolution and recently in the former Soviet Union. I think our ancient ancestors lived "three score years and ten" except in times of famine or epidemics.
|Mar-05-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <twinlark: Isn't this generally true of pretty much any practicing professional?>|
To various degrees I believe this is probably true. I do know that doctors are particularly loathe to admit errors in their management of patients and sometimes tend to cover up ignorance.
Here is a common training situation. In a medical audit, a difficult question is sometimes raised. No one really knows the answer. The consultants asks it of the most junior resident. The poor guy then looks like a complete ignoramus. Yet if every one in that room were forced to answer, it would turn out that even the most senior consultants are ignorant of the answer. Instead the consultants mandate the junior residents to research the answer, and report it next audit. None of the consultants admit that they don't know the answer either. Consultants and senior residents can make a junior look like a complete fool by asking a series of difficult questions, to which they themselves don't know the answers.
I guess the purpose is not only to get the junior to research his cases, but also to embarrass and shame him as a kind of initiation. If it so happens there are interns around, it's them that are forced to answer the questions first. If there are even more junior clerks, the ball gets passed to them first. Everyone who wishes to become a doctor passes through this initiation kind of phenomenon. Every doctor that wishes to specialize more also passes through it again. These audits happen at least once a week. For several successive years.
Medical students and interns who cannot tolerate this kind of training never make it. And there are sadistic residents who gang up on a medical student that they sense is about to break. A junior has no choice but to take all this psychological assault. If there is a hint of rebellion from a junior, a senior can recommend that he be flunked, or kicked out of a specialty program.
Unfortunately, IMO such a training system also trains doctors to cover up errors and ignorance if they can, and encourages the most senior doctors to pretend that they are know-it-all gods.
I do not know if there are alternative systems of training because this is the only one I know, under which I trained under. BTW one reason why I truly respected my old master: He was not scared to admit to me (in an indirect manner) in private that he did not know the answer to some of my questions. I understood in such cases that I was suppose to research the answer.
<Tiggler> Perhaps you have met arrogant pretentious doctors, hence your bias. It could be because of their training. However, now that you know the sweat and tears a doctor has to shed in order to become a doctor, perhaps you would be more 'lenient' in your perspective of him. (",)
|Mar-05-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Tiggler: After the Chernobyl accident it was reported that thyroid cancer incidence in children met or exceeded expectation, but that excess leukemia cases seemed to be unexpectedly absent. The expectations were based on Japanese bomb survivors, who received their doses in a very short exposure.>|
I would think that Chernobyl released lots of radioactive isotopes of iodine, as evidenced by the mammals that died of thyroid failure. Some that got into the thyroids of children eventually caused thyroid cancers. The mammalian thyroid preferentially absorbs and concentrates iodine.
Relatively less radioactive iodine was probably released in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
|Mar-05-14|| ||Tiggler: <visayanbraindoctor>|
At the Windscale (sometimes referred to as Calder Hall) accident in the UK in 1957, a graphite moderated reactor caught fire, melting much of the fuel. The radioactive plume was detected as far away as Spain.
In the immediate locality in Cumbria, farmers were ordered to throw away the milk from their cows. They still had to milk them of course. The government compensated the farmers for the discarded milk and provided forms to complete showing how much wasted milk was produced. Those cows broke all records for milk production during the following month or two! An interesting side effect of radioiodine.
|Mar-05-14|| ||twinlark: Adds a new dimension to the term cash cow.|
|Mar-06-14|| ||Boomie: <twinlark: Adds a new dimension to the term cash cow.>|
That's udderly ridiculous.
|Mar-06-14|| ||Boomie: -|
<VBD: I do not know what the average lifespan of people were in 1910>
As always, it depends on wealth and a bit of luck. People like Curie (66) or Mark Twain (74) lived full lives.
Curie invented mobile X-Ray units and ran them during WW1. This exposure in addition to her lab work probably caused the aplastic anemia that killed her. Obviously she was one tough cookie. Who else could have lasted until age 66 with that much exposure?
|Mar-06-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: <Boomie: average lifespan of people were in 1910|
As always, it depends on wealth and a bit of luck. People like Curie (66) or Mark Twain (74) lived full lives.>
<Tiggler: "three score years and ten">
The ancient Mesopotamian peoples probably noticed that barring trauma and infections, the average person lived to approximately 70 years old. In modern times it's slightly longer than that. Then one typically dies of cardiovascular (say AMI), or cerebrovascular (strokes), or cancer diseases. So they got it just about right. A healthy diet IMO would probably extend the average life span all the way to the 80s, perhaps more, but in general oily salty fast food culture, cigarettes, and alcohol have precluded this. I base this speculation on the fact that bowhead whales, a large mammal, can live up to 200 years.
<Curie invented mobile X-Ray units and ran them during WW1.> I read that she ran the XR machines without any protection. If she was taking XRs of patients almost daily, she must have walloped herself with radiation.
She was indeed one tough lady. It's little known but as a teenager she was a member of the Polish illegal underground resistance to the Russian occupation of her part of Poland. Had she been caught by the Tsar's police, she could have been imprisoned or worse. Naming element 84 Polonium was political propaganda consistent with her patriotic cause, forcibly showing the world that at a time when Poland did not legally exist, there used to be such a country and that Polish activists like her dreamed of her homeland's political independence.
|Mar-06-14|| ||Tiggler: Perhaps it's time someone discovered Ukrainium.|
|Mar-06-14|| ||Boomie: <Tiggler: Perhaps it's time someone discovered Ukrainium.>|
If they did, they'd probably be forced to call it Putinium.
|Mar-06-14|| ||twinlark: *sigh*|
|Mar-07-14|| ||twinlark: You're putin' me on, right?|
|Mar-07-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Theoretically it's possible to resurrect an extinct mammal or bird. The following articles discuss the methods and 'correctness'.|
6 Extinct Animals That Could Be Brought Back to Life
Reviving the Woolly Mammoth: Will De-Extinction Become Reality?
Woolly Mammoth or Thylacine? New Guide Helps Choose Which Species to Resurrect
|Mar-08-14|| ||Boomie: <twinlark: You're putin' me on, right?>|
Don't go Russian to conclusions.
|Mar-08-14|| ||Boomie: <visayanbraindoctor>|
It would be fun to resurrect a Columbian mammoth just to see the looks on the elephant's faces.
|Mar-08-14|| ||visayanbraindoctor: Columbian mammoth:
The North American and North Eurasian landscape must have been breath-taking 10 thousand years ago, with all the mammalian megafauna. Our ancestors may have something to do why they disappeared.
|Mar-09-14|| ||Boomie: <VBD: The North American and North Eurasian landscape must have been breath-taking 10 thousand years ago>|
It's still pretty wild. At least in my neck of the woods in the Pacific Northwest. The grizzly bears and wolves are making a comeback. Mountain lions are not to be toyed with either. And there are herds of buffalo. Granted not the 50 million or so that were here before but at least they are not going extinct.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 215 OF 215 ·