• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Cherry angioma, is the body Detoxing

mesantacruz

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
256
Format
Medium Format
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.



http://www.cheeseslave.com/cherry-angiomas-iodine-and-bromide-detox/


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 a moderator:
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 internet can be a dangerous place to obtain medical information.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Poisson Du Jour said:
DO NOT rely on Google for the correct information.
Click to expand...
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.

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.'
 

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.
 
Don't ask us, ask your doctor.
 


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.
 
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.
 
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
 

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.

Poisson Du Jour said:
The only source of information you should be consulting is a specialist dermatologist on referral from your GP.
Click to expand...

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?


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.

Poisson Du Jour said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Actually swimming in the ocean is a great thing for the body as denoted in the study below...

http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/rehabilitacion-bal/halevys__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.
 
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 a moderator:
"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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register