In article <fka48b$nnt$1@panix3.panix.com>
kfl@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" writes:

> Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > And how well, I wonder, would the average street-USian of today take
> > to the culture and technologies of 1920s America?
>
> I can't speak for the average, but for myself, I would dislike all the
> smoking. At least I'm old enough that I wouldn't have to worry about
> the draft. (Both these concerns continue to apply until the mid-1970s.)

Having had brushes myself with dental problems, some USians might
regret the lack of better medical facilities. Fancy having teeth
drilled and capped old-style?

> > (Assume he/she is unable to convey any post-20s developments,
> > including discoveries of pre-20s facts still lost at that date.)
>
> Would I be allowed to work in electronics at all? Or to make
> investments based on my knowledge of what's to come?
>
> How about conveying late-'20s development, such as inventing
> superheterodyne and FM radio during the early '20s?

I think that knowing which ideas would turn out to be winners (a
lot like knowing what shares to buy) would count as "convey"ing,
if one acted on that knowledge pro or con. (See much past SF.)
--
Andrew Stephenson

In article <slrnfmisab.ar7.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

> I'd probably be more horrified at the general state of medicine back then.
> They
> had anesthesia, okay, but no antibiotics, not even penicillin or sulfa drugs,
> and the various germ- and virus-spread diseases were not yet as mellowed out
> as they got by today even without that factor. Measles, mumps, whooping
> cough,
> polio, rubella, tuberculosis, etc. ... sure, you've been vaccinated and
> immunized, but that might not last the rest of your life.

It would almost certainly last until they had sulfa drugs, and probably
penicillin as well.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now

Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> kfl@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" writes:
>> Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > And how well, I wonder, would the average street-USian of today take
>> > to the culture and technologies of 1920s America?
>>
>> I can't speak for the average, but for myself, I would dislike all the
>> smoking. At least I'm old enough that I wouldn't have to worry about
>> the draft. (Both these concerns continue to apply until the mid-1970s.)
>
>Having had brushes myself with dental problems, some USians might
>regret the lack of better medical facilities. Fancy having teeth
>drilled and capped old-style?

I'd probably be more horrified at the general state of medicine back then. They
had anesthesia, okay, but no antibiotics, not even penicillin or sulfa drugs,
and the various germ- and virus-spread diseases were not yet as mellowed out
as they got by today even without that factor. Measles, mumps, whooping cough,
polio, rubella, tuberculosis, etc. ... sure, you've been vaccinated and
immunized, but that might not last the rest of your life. Next to that,
toothaches might well count as 'minor'.

And there'd be a bit of leftover 1918 influenza virus still running around,
remember...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

In article <slrnfmisab.ar7.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com>,
dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>
> I'd probably be more horrified at the general state of medicine back then.
> They
> had anesthesia, okay, but no antibiotics, not even penicillin or sulfa drugs,
> and the various germ- and virus-spread diseases were not yet as mellowed out
> as they got by today even without that factor. Measles, mumps, whooping
> cough,
> polio, rubella, tuberculosis, etc. ... sure, you've been vaccinated and
> immunized, but that might not last the rest of your life. Next to that,
> toothaches might well count as 'minor'.

In a major sort of way. Toothaches drove people crazy. My mother worked
in a TB sanatorium and when sulfa drugs came in it was _wonderful_,
patients could be expected to recover. Actually they started closing
them and she joined the Air Force as a nurse. And I went through measles
and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.

In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
[...]
> And I went through measles
>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.

Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.

--
Chris Thompson
Email: cet1 [at] cam.ac.uk

In article <fkc3mb$rhq$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>,
Chris Thompson <cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
>Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> And I went through measles
>>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
>>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
>>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
>>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.
>
>Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
>The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
>a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
>the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.

Please note, however, that the longer you wait before catching
the measles, the worse they get. I had 'em at around seventeen
and I had very high fevers and acute photophobia. Two weeks in a
darkened room.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> kfl@KeithLynch.net "Keith F. Lynch" writes:
>> Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> And how well, I wonder, would the average street-USian of today
>>> take to the culture and technologies of 1920s America?

>> I can't speak for the average, but for myself, I would dislike all
>> the smoking. At least I'm old enough that I wouldn't have to worry
>> about the draft. (Both these concerns continue to apply until the
>> mid-1970s.)

> Having had brushes myself with dental problems,

I thought if you brush you won't have dental problems.

> some USians might regret the lack of better medical facilities.
> Fancy having teeth drilled and capped old-style?

Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
but it was basically the same as today. I'd be more concerned about
getting an infection or a chronic condition such as hypertension,
heart disease, or diabetes. There was basically no treatment for
any of those in 1920.

I wonder if the polio vaccination I got in the 1960s would still work
40 years later -- I mean 40 years earlier. And as far as I know I've
never been vaccinated against smallpox, scarlet fever, or tuberculosis.
Or against the 1918 flu that killed more people than WWI.

>> How about conveying late-'20s development, such as inventing
>> superheterodyne and FM radio during the early '20s?

> I think that knowing which ideas would turn out to be winners (a
> lot like knowing what shares to buy) would count as "convey"ing,
> if one acted on that knowledge pro or con. (See much past SF.)

I could hardly fail to act on my knowledge, unless my memory was
wiped, in which case I wouldn't be me.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 19 Dec 2007 21:50:03 GMT, cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson)
wrote:

>In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
>Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>[...]
>> And I went through measles
>>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
>>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
>>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
>>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.
>
>Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
>The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
>a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
>the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.

And which is the one that has the possibility of making men sterile if
they get it as an adult instead of a kid?

Rebecca

In article <64ijm39om4hur28ls2ec5krvcrrb4eifnv@4ax.com>,
philospher77@yahoo.com wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2007 21:50:03 GMT, cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
> >Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
> >[...]
> >> And I went through measles
> >>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
> >>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
> >>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
> >>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.
> >
> >Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
> >The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
> >a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
> >the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.
>
> And which is the one that has the possibility of making men sterile if
> they get it as an adult instead of a kid?
>
> Rebecca

Mumps

--
Don Bruder - dakidd@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info

In article <64ijm39om4hur28ls2ec5krvcrrb4eifnv@4ax.com>,
<philospher77@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2007 21:50:03 GMT, cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
>>Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>> And I went through measles
>>>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
>>>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
>>>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
>>>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.
>>
>>Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
>>The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
>>a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
>>the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.
>
>And which is the one that has the possibility of making men sterile if
>they get it as an adult instead of a kid?

That's mumps.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:58:10 -0500, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
>And I went through measles
>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.

Similar considerations for men and mumps - if you get it after puberty you
can probably wave goodbye to an orchid or two.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

"David DeLaney" <dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com> wrote in message
news:slrnfmisab.ar7.dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com...


> And there'd be a bit of leftover 1918 influenza virus still running
> around,
> remember...

The term 'Superflu' would probably give them nightmares.

In article <JtBsA8.My0@kithrup.com>,
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

> In article <64ijm39om4hur28ls2ec5krvcrrb4eifnv@4ax.com>,
> <philospher77@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >On 19 Dec 2007 21:50:03 GMT, cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Chris Thompson)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <proto-7D0A6A.15581019122007@news.panix.com>,
> >>Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
> >>[...]
> >>> And I went through measles
> >>>and mumps not nice, not nice at all, but _everyone_ got them sooner or
> >>>later, and it was even a good idea because if you were of the female
> >>>religion and didn't catch measles until you were pregnant it could
> >>>affect the fetus, in a very non-good way.
> >>
> >>Some confusion here between Measles (Rubeola) and German Measles (Rubella).
> >>The former is unpleasant, highly infectious, but not AFAIK damaging to
> >>a fetus. The latter is mild, not very infectious, and very damaging to
> >>the fetus during the first few months of pregnancy.
> >
> >And which is the one that has the possibility of making men sterile if
> >they get it as an adult instead of a kid?
>
> That's mumps.
>
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djheydt@kithrup.com

I thought mumps was software for hospitals.

In rec.arts.sf.written Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Having had brushes myself with dental problems,
>
> I thought if you brush you won't have dental problems.

*roflol*

More seriously, a lot of it's innate(*) - my wife pretty scrupulous care of
her teeth than I do, and STILL has had more dental work needed than I can
keep track of. While I have gone to the dentist FAR less than recommended,
brush once a day before bed... well, only _most_ days... and still have had
only three fillings, none before age 30.

(* whether it's genetics or early developmental or some combination, I don't
know.)

> > I think that knowing which ideas would turn out to be winners (a
> > lot like knowing what shares to buy) would count as "convey"ing,
> > if one acted on that knowledge pro or con. (See much past SF.)
>
> I could hardly fail to act on my knowledge, unless my memory was
> wiped, in which case I wouldn't be me.

OTOH, you could be threatened with severe consequences if you acted on it...
although I suppose being stuck back in 1920 is a pretty sever consequence to
begin with.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:

>I'd probably be more horrified at the general state of medicine back then. They
>had anesthesia, okay, but no antibiotics, not even penicillin or sulfa drugs,
>and the various germ- and virus-spread diseases were not yet as mellowed out...

Not to mention "minor" infections and secondary conditions. I've had
two episodes that blew up sudenly, what they used to call
"fulminating": a throat abscess that went from nothing to misery in 48
hours, and bronchitis that turned overnight into pleuritis
(inflammation all around the lung cavity, exquisitely painful but only
if you insist on berathing).

Both were knocked down quickly with erythromycin, which had me feeling
better a few hours after the first pill and cured in a few days; both
would have had a good chance of killing me in 1930.

"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
>but it was basically the same as today. I'd be more concerned about
>getting an infection..

They're not unconnected. When you look at old dental tools and shudder
at the thoguht of an extraction pre-anesthesia, remember that the
alternative wasn't just a toothache. It wasn't at all rare for a bad
tooth to lead to an abscess and fatal septicemia.

In article <proto-09FE5B.00165520122007@news.panix.com>
proto@oanix.com "Walter Bushell" writes:

> In article <JtBsA8.My0@kithrup.com>,
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
> > That's mumps.
>
> I thought mumps was software for hospitals.

Nah, Mumps is one of those affectionate nicknames young children
apply to female relatives of one or two generations earlier.
--
Andrew Stephenson

On 19 Dec 2007 20:22:20 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in
<news:fkcg4c$6g3$1@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.composition:

> Andrew Stephenson <ames@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

>> Having had brushes myself with dental problems,

> I thought if you brush you won't have dental problems.

Ha. My dentist takes excellent care of his teeth, and
they're still almost as bad as mine. My father took good
care of his teeth, and they were quite possibly worse than
mine. How bad is that? I think that I still have 25 real
teeth, though it might be only 24, and about half of those
are dead. (I can't be more precise: I simply don't remember
how many root canals I've had.)

>> some USians might regret the lack of better medical facilities.
>> Fancy having teeth drilled and capped old-style?

> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920?

Yes.

[...]

Brian

In article <llhkm3tcupdn0e934atgi81i4b98gnjpbf@4ax.com>,
Monte Davis <monte.davis@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>>Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
>>but it was basically the same as today. I'd be more concerned about
>>getting an infection..
>
>They're not unconnected. When you look at old dental tools and shudder
>at the thoguht of an extraction pre-anesthesia, remember that the
>alternative wasn't just a toothache. It wasn't at all rare for a bad
>tooth to lead to an abscess and fatal septicemia.

We lost some kind of aunt (I'm a little fuzzy on the relation) in the 20s
from the dentist breaking a drill off in her jaw. The resultant infection
killed her.

Ted

Monte Davis <monte.davis@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
> >but it was basically the same as today. I'd be more concerned about
> >getting an infection..
>
> They're not unconnected. When you look at old dental tools and shudder
> at the thoguht of an extraction pre-anesthesia, remember that the
> alternative wasn't just a toothache. It wasn't at all rare for a bad
> tooth to lead to an abscess and fatal septicemia.

At least if the dates on wikipedia are to be believed, they'd have had
novocaine, and thus local anethesia for dentistry in 1920.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

On Dec 20, 2:00 am, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.written Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Stephenson <a...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Having had brushes myself with dental problems,
>
> > I thought if you brush you won't have dental problems.
>
> *roflol*
>
> More seriously, a lot of it's innate(*) - my wife pretty scrupulous care of
> her teeth than I do, and STILL has had more dental work needed than I can
> keep track of. While I have gone to the dentist FAR less than recommended,
> brush once a day before bed... well, only _most_ days... and still have had
> only three fillings, none before age 30.
>
> (* whether it's genetics or early developmental or some combination, I don't
> know.)

How do you differ from her in your history of drinking milk and soft
drinks, tea or coffee? I've been a milk and/or water drinker all my
life and don't drink the other very often. I've had only a couple of
cavities despite not brushing more than once a day.

In rec.arts.sf.written Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2:00 am, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> > More seriously, a lot of it's innate(*) - my wife pretty scrupulous care of
> > her teeth than I do, and STILL has had more dental work needed than I can
> > keep track of. While I have gone to the dentist FAR less than recommended,
> > brush once a day before bed... well, only _most_ days... and still have had
> > only three fillings, none before age 30.
> >
> > (* whether it's genetics or early developmental or some combination, I don't
> > know.)
>
> How do you differ from her in your history of drinking milk and soft
> drinks, tea or coffee? I've been a milk and/or water drinker all my
> life and don't drink the other very often. I've had only a couple of
> cavities despite not brushing more than once a day.

Yeah, although I'm not sure if it's positive or negative; I drink a lot more
milk than her these days and since my teens, but growing up we both drank
tons (just more voluntarily in my case.)

I've always drunk a lot more sugary stuff than her (both soft drinks and
juice - in my teens, enough sugary, caffeinated stuff to probably count as a
"caffeine junky" without ever touching coffee), both growing up and now, but
"no coffee" to her "not very much" and "very little tea" to her "relatively
little tea."

So overall, I wouldn't expect much difference from diet.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
> but it was basically the same as today.

You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since the
1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two orders of
magnitude.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:43:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
wrote:

> At least if the dates on wikipedia are to be believed, they'd have had
> novocaine, and thus local anethesia for dentistry in 1920.

The novocaine itself was a pretty horrible experience well into the
sixties.

Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
..

On 19 Dec 2007 20:22:20 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920?

I experience more "living in the future" moments at the dentist's
office than everywhere else put together.

Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

In article <8d3fa9b3-ddd9-4af3-a767-2133be21bf52
@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Reichert@hotmail.com says...
> On Dec 20, 2:00 am, archm...@sfchat.org (Nate Edel) wrote:
> > In rec.arts.sf.written Keith F. Lynch <k...@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew Stephenson <a...@deltrak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Having had brushes myself with dental problems,
> >
> > > I thought if you brush you won't have dental problems.
> >
> > *roflol*
> >
> > More seriously, a lot of it's innate(*) - my wife pretty scrupulous care of
> > her teeth than I do, and STILL has had more dental work needed than I can
> > keep track of. While I have gone to the dentist FAR less than recommended,
> > brush once a day before bed... well, only _most_ days... and still have had
> > only three fillings, none before age 30.
> >
> > (* whether it's genetics or early developmental or some combination, I don't
> > know.)
>
> How do you differ from her in your history of drinking milk and soft
> drinks, tea or coffee? I've been a milk and/or water drinker all my
> life and don't drink the other very often. I've had only a couple of
> cavities despite not brushing more than once a day.
>
Are you assuming tea and coffee are to blame because of sugar in them?
I drink tons of tea (green or herbal, usually) throughout the day and
night, but I never put sugar in it. I put one cube of unrefined sugar in
my morning coffee, but that's before I brush my teeth. Never drink any
milk at all, no sugary drinks either. I've never had any cavities. Not
as a child or adult.

It probably _is_ genetic. My mother's teeth are very bad despite her
having taken reasonable care of them when young, my father totally
ignored his teeth but had no cavities at all until at old age, all his
teeth suddenly capitulated at once. I seem to have inherited his...

rgds,
netcat

In message <476b1d80$0$31127$607ed4bc@cv.net>, John W. Kennedy
<jwkenne@attglobal.net> writes
>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
>> but it was basically the same as today.
>
>You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since the
>1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two orders of
>magnitude.

I remember hating the new high speed dental drills when they came in.
The awful whine and the water spray (for cooling) actually felt nastier
than the old fashioned drills.

Injections are far less painful, though - or maybe I just have a gentler
dentist now.

Jacey

--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own

Jacey Bedford wrote:
> In message <476b1d80$0$31127$607ed4bc@cv.net>, John W. Kennedy
> <jwkenne@attglobal.net> writes
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details, perhaps,
>>> but it was basically the same as today.
>>
>> You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since the
>> 1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two orders of
>> magnitude.
>
> I remember hating the new high speed dental drills when they came in.
> The awful whine and the water spray (for cooling) actually felt nastier
> than the old fashioned drills.
>
My first dentist (who was struck off for drunkenness in the surgery)
used the old fashioned drill. When I got taken to a new dentist I can
tell you his drills were wonderful, with the squirty water and everything.

> Injections are far less painful, though - or maybe I just have a gentler
> dentist now.
>
I was terrified of injections when I was a child. I refused them, and
the fuss I made ensured all my childhood dentistry was carried out
without anaesthetic (except for having a tooth pulled, done under gas by
the first dentist). Work included numerous removals of old fillings to
be replaced by new ones - by the time I was 14 one of my lower molars
was 90% filling and 10% tooth. I still believe much of the work was
unnecessary ...

I didn't have my first dental anaesthetic until I was in the army: it
was a revelation! How stupid of me to refuse injections when I was a kid!

Nowadays my current dentist places an ectopic anaesthetic on the gum
before giving the injection so the process is completely painless.
Dentistry is much more humane now, except for the hygiene work: the
hygiene nurse still uses an old-fashioned drill to dislodge the plaque ...

> Jacey
>
Rik

In message <VNPaj.33327$036.19111@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, Rik
<rik@kalieda.org> writes
>Jacey Bedford wrote:
>> I remember hating the new high speed dental drills when they came
>>in. The awful whine and the water spray (for cooling) actually felt
>>nastier than the old fashioned drills.
>>
>My first dentist (who was struck off for drunkenness in the surgery)
>used the old fashioned drill. When I got taken to a new dentist I can
>tell you his drills were wonderful, with the squirty water and
>everything.

I hate the squirty water with a passion. It always feels as though it's
getting right through to the nerves of my teeth even when I've had an
anaesthetic. think it makes all the other un-numbed teeth jump.
>
>> Injections are far less painful, though - or maybe I just have a
>>gentler dentist now.
>>
>I was terrified of injections when I was a child.

I wasn't until I had them. I remember two injections going into the roof
of my mouth - right at the back and it felt as though the needle was
coming out of the top of my head. It scared me good and proper, i can
tell you. So the next time I asked whether I had to have the injections
and without explaining what a dental drill feels like when it's going
into the nerve of your tooth, the dentist proceeded to fill two back
molars without anaesthetic.

I can still remember the pain!!!!

I have had the injections ever since... but never had one in that area
of my mouth again. I really don't know what those injections were or
why they were done. When I feel at that place with my tongue I still
have two little lumpy scars where the needle went in... I must have been
about - oh - seven I guess.

Not a pleasant experience.

I learned many years later that my dentist had quite a reputation for
being heavy handed.


>I refused them, and the fuss I made ensured all my childhood dentistry
>was carried out without anaesthetic (except for having a tooth pulled,
>done under gas by the first dentist). Work included numerous removals
>of old fillings to be replaced by new ones - by the time I was 14 one
>of my lower molars was 90% filling and 10% tooth. I still believe much
>of the work was unnecessary ...

Having changed dentists it was my experience that different dentists had
different ideas of 'necessary'. I have had 5 dentists in my lifetime.
The first was the dentist of my milk-teeth. the second was a gentle soul
who looked after me in my teen years and saw me through fairly mild
orthodontic work.

I always remember he wanted to take out a back molar when I was 18
because he said it was too heavily filled and would not fill again
successfully. I wouldn't let him take it out. He filled it against his
better judgement and nearly 50 years later I still have the tooth
(albeit crowned now).

But the following dentist - also a heavy-handed sonovabitch - seemed to
want to make his mark on my mouth because he removed and replaced every
single filling my previous dentist had done, muttering about how bad
they were.

My current dentist is lovely. Very delicate. We've been together for 26
years and I don't know what I'll do when he retires.

Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own

In article <Mcccmna4P7aHFwmq@parkhead.demon.co.uk>
lookinsig@nospam.invalid "Jacey Bedford" writes:

> Injections are far less painful, though - or maybe I just have
> a gentler dentist now.

I quizzed my dentist about that (lying there between bouts is a
good moment to do research, I find) and she said there had been
many developments in dental anaesthetics over the past 40 years
or so: speed of onset and end of effect; efficacy; lack of side
effects; less leaking into neighbouring areas; &c &c.
--
Andrew Stephenson

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:08:53 GMT, Rik <rik@kalieda.org>
wrote in
<news:VNPaj.33327$036.19111@fe1.news.blueyonder.co. uk> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.composition:

> Jacey Bedford wrote:

[...]

>> Injections are far less painful, though - or maybe I just
>> have a gentler dentist now.

> I was terrified of injections when I was a child. I
> refused them, and the fuss I made ensured all my
> childhood dentistry was carried out without anaesthetic
> (except for having a tooth pulled, done under gas by the
> first dentist).

I had no problem with injections per se, but I preferred to
do without for most dental work: I preferred a short period
of somewhat more intense pain to an extended period of still
significant pain as the anaesthetic wore off. Modern dental
anaesthetics don't seem to have this problem, so I routinely
let my dentist use them. Besides, they help keep the field
of operations clear of blood, and the modern filling
materials are touchy that way.

[...]

> Nowadays my current dentist places an ectopic anaesthetic
> on the gum before giving the injection so the process is
> completely painless.

Well, I'd not go quite *that* far, especially if it's on the
inner face of the gum.

> Dentistry is much more humane now, except for the hygiene
> work: the hygiene nurse still uses an old-fashioned
> drill to dislodge the plaque ...

Mine uses a sonic device. It can be a little uncomfortable
at times, but she has pretty good hands. Not up to my
dentist's first hygienist, but she was a bloody
miracle-worker: she had the gentlest touch I've ever
encountered in a dental chair, from dentist, assistant, or
hygienist, and he says that she did a superb job of cleaning
to boot.

Brian

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:39:36 +0000, Jacey Bedford
<lookinsig@nospam.invalid> wrote in
<news:dUIYkejoA9aHFwk6@parkhead.demon.co.uk> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.composition:

[...]

> I remember two injections going into the roof of my mouth
> - right at the back and it felt as though the needle was
> coming out of the top of my head.

[...]

> I have had the injections ever since... but never had one
> in that area of my mouth again. I really don't know what
> those injections were or why they were done.

There are some nerves that can be numbed only by an
injection into the hard palate, and there's no way to keep
that from being painful. Preliminary application of a
topical anaesthetic helps a little, but only a very little;
that tissue is just too damn' dense. No other spot is
nearly so bad, though in general the inside of the gum is
worse than the outside. Oh, and the injection back into the
angle between the jaws can make you jump if he hits the
nerve.

[...]

Brian

Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920?
>
>I experience more "living in the future" moments at the dentist's
>office than everywhere else put together.

Two words: laser drills. (We've moved _past_ the ultrasonic drills that USED
to be The Future...)

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:22:08 -0500, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920?
>>
>>I experience more "living in the future" moments at the dentist's
>>office than everywhere else put together.
>
>Two words: laser drills. (We've moved _past_ the ultrasonic drills that USED
>to be The Future...)

The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. It's not
really very good at hole making. Its only virtue is that it's fast.
I've processed and/or seen more manufacturing errors and problem
reports recently using laser drills than most any other process,
simple human error* excepted.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

*My favorite is the plant quality manager who dropped a flashlight
into a critical painted area while making a (...drumroll...rimshot)
quality inspection. The part had to be disassmbled and repainted. He
was a good sport about it, and took the ribbing well.

Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:43:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
> wrote:
> > At least if the dates on wikipedia are to be believed, they'd have had
> > novocaine, and thus local anethesia for dentistry in 1920.
>
> The novocaine itself was a pretty horrible experience well into the
> sixties.

It's quite bad enough *now*, but I'll take your word for it. Still has got
to beat the lack of anethesia.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
>Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:43:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>> wrote:
>> > At least if the dates on wikipedia are to be believed, they'd have had
>> > novocaine, and thus local anethesia for dentistry in 1920.
>>
>> The novocaine itself was a pretty horrible experience well into the
>> sixties.
>
>It's quite bad enough *now*, but I'll take your word for it. Still has got
>to beat the lack of anethesia.

As another who has in fact had anaesthesialess dentistry done while young,
I agree with this latter bit. The needles used to be painful enough that
to this day I'll flinch reflexively ... even though the dentist I used this
year really -was- fairly painless about it (and about the work performed
under their influence afterwards).

One thing that I haven't had many others say they experienced is that at one
point I had, I think, nitrous oxide?, or some inhaled anaesthetic, for dental
work - meant to put me under while some tooth work was done. Unfortunately,
as I remember it, it didn't put me out; it just turned off my vision
(substituting a brown-and-black moire pattern) and made me unable to move
my muscles. Still heard everything and felt the sensations. That _has_ put
me off the gaseous-anaesthetics-for-dentistry for life...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details,
>> perhaps, but it was basically the same as today.

> You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since
> the 1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two
> orders of magnitude.

I was contrasting it with the rest of medicine.

In 1920 there were no treatments for diabetes, hypertension,
tuberculosis, polio, smallpox, or common infections. None. There
were no organ transplants. There was no bypass surgery or other open
heart surgery. There were no CAT scans, PET scans, or MRIs. Nobody
knew what foods were good or bad. Nobody knew that smoking was bad.
People took radium salts for their health. The life expectancy in the
US was a decade or two shorter than today.

But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article <fki10o$ajc$1@panix3.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details,
>>> perhaps, but it was basically the same as today.
>
>> You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since
>> the 1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two
>> orders of magnitude.
>
>I was contrasting it with the rest of medicine.
>
>In 1920 there were no treatments for diabetes, hypertension,
>tuberculosis, polio, smallpox, or common infections. None. There
>were no organ transplants. There was no bypass surgery or other open
>heart surgery. There were no CAT scans, PET scans, or MRIs. Nobody
>knew what foods were good or bad. Nobody knew that smoking was bad.
>People took radium salts for their health. The life expectancy in the
>US was a decade or two shorter than today.
>
>But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
>1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
>office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.

Not the stuff he uses for fillings nowadays? It's some kind of
resin and once he's got it in place and shaped to suit him, he
sets it with heat or infrared or something.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On 2007-12-21 19:41:12 -0800, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> said:

> But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
> 1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
> office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.

Right. Nobody from 1920 would be the least bit surprised by a dentist
with his own X-ray machine, one that produces digital images that
appear in seconds on a computer screen. That wouldn't be remotely
astonishing. Besides, modern dentists only use PCs for bookkeeping.

In 1920, they were still theorizing that fluoride might have something
to do with lower cavity rates -- but nobody from 1920 would be
astonished by anything in a present-day office. Of course they
wouldn't.

kdb

On 2007-12-21 20:13:32 -0800, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:

> In article <fki10o$ajc$1@panix3.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> John W. Kennedy <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>>> Has dentistry changed all that much since 1920? In details,
>>>> perhaps, but it was basically the same as today.
>>
>>> You have no idea how much those "details" have changed even since
>>> the 1950s! To begin with, drills have been sped up by one to two
>>> orders of magnitude.
>>
>> I was contrasting it with the rest of medicine.
>>
>> In 1920 there were no treatments for diabetes, hypertension,
>> tuberculosis, polio, smallpox, or common infections. None. There
>> were no organ transplants. There was no bypass surgery or other open
>> heart surgery. There were no CAT scans, PET scans, or MRIs. Nobody
>> knew what foods were good or bad. Nobody knew that smoking was bad.
>> People took radium salts for their health. The life expectancy in the
>> US was a decade or two shorter than today.
>>
>> But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
>> 1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
>> office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.
>
> Not the stuff he uses for fillings nowadays? It's some kind of
> resin and once he's got it in place and shaped to suit him, he
> sets it with heat or infrared or something.

That's composite filling; didn't exist in 1920.

kdb

On 21 Dec 2007 22:41:12 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote in
<news:fki10o$ajc$1@panix3.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.composition:

[...]

> But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things.
> Nobody from 1920 would be astonished by anything he saw
> in a present-day dentist's office -- except maybe the PC
> he uses for bookkeeping.

A dentist would, once he actually investigated.

Brian

: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
: But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
: 1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
: office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.

What, not the root canals to save teeth instead of just yanking them?
Not implanting prosthetic teeth into the jaw? The technology behind
crowns wouldn't impress at all? Behaviors of modern anesthetics wouldn't
have them smiling and/or scratching their heads? Orthodondia? Bonding?
Routine cleanings? Prescription antibiotics to use after some of the
more major procedures? Live digital x-rays, and the size of the
equipment for it? (The x-rays aren't digital of course... the
detector is a ccd stuck into the mouth on a stick)

Rignt now, as we speak, Louis Pasteur has devised a new vaccine
which will obliterate anthrax once and for all...

--- Dr. Sam Johnson


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:16:05 -0500, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney)
wrote:

>As another who has in fact had anaesthesialess dentistry done while young,
>I agree with this latter bit. The needles used to be painful enough that
>to this day I'll flinch reflexively ... even though the dentist I used this
>year really -was- fairly painless about it (and about the work performed
>under their influence afterwards).

I was born in '79, and still most of my dentistry was done anesthesialess.
Recently, too. I've had a couple of small cavities filled (mostly not too
bad, except for when they use the large slow roughing up drill thing to
make a rough surface for the filling to adhere), and one fairly major one
that was quite close to the root. That one was rather traumatic. I think I
may have asked for anesthesia the smallish one after that.

Jasper

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:13:32 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
wrote:
>In article <fki10o$ajc$1@panix3.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>>In 1920 there were no treatments for diabetes, hypertension,
>>tuberculosis, polio, smallpox, or common infections. None. There
>>were no organ transplants. There was no bypass surgery or other open
>>heart surgery. There were no CAT scans, PET scans, or MRIs. Nobody
>>knew what foods were good or bad. Nobody knew that smoking was bad.
>>People took radium salts for their health. The life expectancy in the
>>US was a decade or two shorter than today.
>>
>>But dentists do pretty much the same sorts of things. Nobody from
>>1920 would be astonished by anything he saw in a present-day dentist's
>>office -- except maybe the PC he uses for bookkeeping.
>
>Not the stuff he uses for fillings nowadays? It's some kind of
>resin and once he's got it in place and shaped to suit him, he
>sets it with heat or infrared or something.

UV, actually[1]. I asked.

In the second half of the 90s, my first fillings were still amalgam.


Jasper

[1] Well, it was on the stuff in my mouth. Plus UV-curing resins are
fairly common in composites that set very very hard, whereas
thermo-setters aren't so much.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 06:05:52 GMT, throopw@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>more major procedures? Live digital x-rays, and the size of the
>equipment for it? (The x-rays aren't digital of course... the
>detector is a ccd stuck into the mouth on a stick)

My dentist actually sticks a bit of 1.5 inch square plastic-wrapped
something into my mouth, which I think is something along the lines of
polaroid film -- it does get scanned into the computer and enlarged, but
there's no direct cable hookup at moment of exposure and it's way too
small/thin to be a CCD+memory+battery gadget.

Jasper

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:13:20 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. It's not
>really very good at hole making. Its only virtue is that it's fast.
>I've processed and/or seen more manufacturing errors and problem
>reports recently using laser drills than most any other process,
>simple human error* excepted.

Laser drills/ablation are being used to good effect in medicine, though,
where they have some serious advantages over mechanical ones.

See also LASIK, and endoscope-carried packets of photonic destruction,
etc.


Jasper

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:57 +0100, Jasper Janssen
<jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:13:20 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. It's not
>>really very good at hole making. Its only virtue is that it's fast.
>>I've processed and/or seen more manufacturing errors and problem
>>reports recently using laser drills than most any other process,
>>simple human error* excepted.
>
>Laser drills/ablation are being used to good effect in medicine, though,
>where they have some serious advantages over mechanical ones.
>
>See also LASIK, and endoscope-carried packets of photonic destruction,
>etc.

Ah, different scales. Those aren't hole makers. The hole making drills
I'm used to are about 8' tall, weigh, oh, a few thousand pounds, and
consume a good chunk of a megawatt of electricity in operation.

Ablation and local cauterization of tissue are basically boiling tiny
quantities of water. Lasers can do that fairly well. I just don't
think of that as drilling.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. [...]
>>
>>Laser drills/ablation are being used to good effect in medicine, though,
>>where they have some serious advantages over mechanical ones.
>
>Ah, different scales. Those aren't hole makers. The hole making drills
>I'm used to are about 8' tall, weigh, oh, a few thousand pounds, and
>consume a good chunk of a megawatt of electricity in operation.

Heh. Way to make people reading this thread -really- afraid of going to the
dentist.

>Ablation and local cauterization of tissue are basically boiling tiny
>quantities of water. Lasers can do that fairly well. I just don't
>think of that as drilling.

Well, it _was_ in a dentist-equipment thread...

Dave "though ... if they also had Jacob's Ladders attached ... hmmm. <exits
stage left>" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:16:05 -0500, dbd@gatekeeper.vic.com (David
DeLaney) wrote:

>Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
>>Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:43:01 -0800, archmage@sfchat.org (Nate Edel)
>>> wrote:
>>> > At least if the dates on wikipedia are to be believed, they'd have had
>>> > novocaine, and thus local anethesia for dentistry in 1920.
>>>
>>> The novocaine itself was a pretty horrible experience well into the
>>> sixties.
>>
>>It's quite bad enough *now*, but I'll take your word for it. Still has got
>>to beat the lack of anethesia.
>
>As another who has in fact had anaesthesialess dentistry done while young,
>I agree with this latter bit. The needles used to be painful enough that
>to this day I'll flinch reflexively ... even though the dentist I used this
>year really -was- fairly painless about it (and about the work performed
>under their influence afterwards).
>
>One thing that I haven't had many others say they experienced is that at one
>point I had, I think, nitrous oxide?, or some inhaled anaesthetic, for dental
>work - meant to put me under while some tooth work was done. Unfortunately,
>as I remember it, it didn't put me out; it just turned off my vision
>(substituting a brown-and-black moire pattern) and made me unable to move
>my muscles. Still heard everything and felt the sensations. That _has_ put
>me off the gaseous-anaesthetics-for-dentistry for life...
>
I was wary of the gaseous anesthetics for quite some time after a bad
experience with nitrous oxide. I'm a mouth-breather, and they hook
that up to your nose, so I didn't breathe enough it in and it started
wearing off about halfway through. But I tried it again recently for
some dental work, and it was really nice. It wasn't the primary
anesthetic.. they still used novocaine for that. But it made me feel
all nice and floaty and sort of disconnected, which meant I wasn't all
stressed out during the procedure, which I have to think made it much
easier for the dentist as well as me. So, if your dentist offers
"twilight sedation", you might want to give it a try.

Rebecca

: Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
: My dentist actually sticks a bit of 1.5 inch square plastic-wrapped
: something into my mouth, which I think is something along the lines of
: polaroid film -- it does get scanned into the computer and enlarged, but
: there's no direct cable hookup at moment of exposure and it's way too
: small/thin to be a CCD+memory+battery gadget.

IME almost all dental x-rays are like that; actual film. However,
during a recent root canal, right in the middle of the procedure
(well... towards the end, but still, during), they covered me with a
lead apron, donned one themselves, said "hold this handle, zapped me,
and then looked at the results seconds later. It's the "seconds later"
that's probably the reason; they needed to get feedback before going on,
and film developing, while fast these days, isn't that fast.

Up until that point, I'd never seen one. And when I went for a followup,
they used film, so if they hadn't needed a check (and apparently they don't
always), I'd never have been aware of it.

On the other hand, I've heard that some practices have cut over to using
it almost exclusively. So... go figure.


Wayne Throop throopw@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw

Wayne Throop wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org>
>> My dentist actually sticks a bit of 1.5 inch square plastic-wrapped
>> something into my mouth, which I think is something along the lines
>> of polaroid film -- it does get scanned into the computer and
>> enlarged, but there's no direct cable hookup at moment of exposure
>> and it's way too small/thin to be a CCD+memory+battery gadget.
>
> IME almost all dental x-rays are like that; actual film. However,
> during a recent root canal, right in the middle of the procedure
> (well... towards the end, but still, during), they covered me with a
> lead apron, donned one themselves, said "hold this handle, zapped me,
> and then looked at the results seconds later. It's the "seconds
> later" that's probably the reason; they needed to get feedback before
> going on, and film developing, while fast these days, isn't that fast.
>
> Up until that point, I'd never seen one. And when I went for a
> followup, they used film, so if they hadn't needed a check (and
> apparently they don't always), I'd never have been aware of it.
>
> On the other hand, I've heard that some practices have cut over to
> using it almost exclusively. So... go figure.
>
As with a lot of new tech, buying a new system like that is probably decided
by each individual practice based on need versus cost leavened by a bit of
"that's cool!"

--
Because of heavy computing requirements we are currently using some of
your unallocated brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore
any hallucinations, voices, or unusual dreams you may experience.
Please avoid concentration intensive tasks until further notice. Thank
you.

On 21 Dec 2007 22:41:12 -0500, "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net>
wrote:

> Nobody knew that smoking was bad.

Which is, of course, why the twenties slang for "cigarette" was
"coffin nail".

Joy Beeson
--
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/ -- sewing
http://n3f.home.comcast.net/ -- Writers' Exchange
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

In article <j0spm3tcbnr8cvgtoh4d28om3naqddqftc@4ax.com>,
Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>I was born in '79, and still most of my dentistry was done anesthesialess.
>Recently, too. I've had a couple of small cavities filled (mostly not too
>bad, except for when they use the large slow roughing up drill thing to
>make a rough surface for the filling to adhere), and one fairly major one
>that was quite close to the root. That one was rather traumatic. I think I
>may have asked for anesthesia the smallish one after that.

When I was young, my mouth was too small to fit all my teeth, and
I had to have several pulled. I had copious local anesthetic, and
it still hurt like hell.

More recently I had to get my wisdom teeth out. I'd had enough of
being conscious while having teeth pulled. I went for the general.

--
David Goldfarb |"Newsgroups trimmed back to rec.arts.sf.written,
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu | in the hope of subverting society's traditional
goldfarb@csua.berkeley.edu | values in a more focussed, netiquette-aware
| fashion." -- Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> wrote:
>"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Nobody knew that smoking was bad.
>
>Which is, of course, why the twenties slang for "cigarette" was
>"coffin nail".

Even back then they suspected a link to the otherwise-inexplicable rise of
lung cancer. The tobacco companies fought against this link being made
explicit for -decades-, and finally failed...

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:30:03 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:57 +0100, Jasper Janssen
><jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:13:20 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. It's not
>>>really very good at hole making. Its only virtue is that it's fast.
>>>I've processed and/or seen more manufacturing errors and problem
>>>reports recently using laser drills than most any other process,
>>>simple human error* excepted.
>>
>>Laser drills/ablation are being used to good effect in medicine, though,
>>where they have some serious advantages over mechanical ones.
>>
>>See also LASIK, and endoscope-carried packets of photonic destruction,
>>etc.
>
>Ah, different scales. Those aren't hole makers. The hole making drills
>I'm used to are about 8' tall, weigh, oh, a few thousand pounds, and
>consume a good chunk of a megawatt of electricity in operation.

And why do you use a megawatt feeding a laser instead of a 5 horse motor
with a steel drill?

>Ablation and local cauterization of tissue are basically boiling tiny
>quantities of water. Lasers can do that fairly well. I just don't
>think of that as drilling.

But we were talking about dentistry. It's bigger than ablation and
cauterisation of arteries, but not industrial scale. A 100 to 1000 W CO2
laser probably would be enough.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 09:30:03 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:19:57 +0100, Jasper Janssen
>> <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:13:20 -0500, Jack Tingle <wjtingle@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The laser drill is a technology whose time may never come. It's not
>>>> really very good at hole making. Its only virtue is that it's fast.
>>>> I've processed and/or seen more manufacturing errors and problem
>>>> reports recently using laser drills than most any other process,
>>>> simple human error* excepted.
>>> Laser drills/ablation are being used to good effect in medicine, though,
>>> where they have some serious advantages over mechanical ones.
>>>
>>> See also LASIK, and endoscope-carried packets of photonic destruction,
>>> etc.
>> Ah, different scales. Those aren't hole makers. The hole making drills
>> I'm used to are about 8' tall, weigh, oh, a few thousand pounds, and
>> consume a good chunk of a megawatt of electricity in operation.
>
> And why do you use a megawatt feeding a laser instead of a 5 horse motor
> with a steel drill?

We make lots (tens of thousands per hour) of small holes in very tough
materials (nickel and cobalt superalloys). Personally, I find rotating
electrode EDM does a better job, but the laser is faster, if much less
accurate. Ganged electrode EDM is in between. Steel bits won't actually
do anything but wear themselves out. Carbide bits last about 3 holes.

>> Ablation and local cauterization of tissue are basically boiling tiny
>> quantities of water. Lasers can do that fairly well. I just don't
>> think of that as drilling.
>
> But we were talking about dentistry. It's bigger than ablation and
> cauterisation of arteries, but not industrial scale. A 100 to 1000 W CO2
> laser probably would be enough.

I suspect most of the dentistry uses make use of the fact that tooth
material is a water-laden porous ceramic, and is subject to
microfracture by high thermal gradients. (ref:
http://www.dental--health.com/dental_laserbasics.html) Yep, most of the
dental lasers on the web are a few watts, pulsed at low acoustic
frequencies. That doesn't work on metal. They're also very imprecise
looking, hand-held equipment.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
>> I could hardly fail to act on my knowledge, unless my memory was
>> wiped, in which case I wouldn't be me.

> OTOH, you could be threatened with severe consequences if you acted
> on it... although I suppose being stuck back in 1920 is a pretty
> sever consequence to begin with.

I couldn't necessarily be sure whether I was acting on my future
knowledge, or on what I would reasonably have deduced from what
I learned since arriving in 1920. It would be like asking me to
demonstrate my ability to navigate through my apartment in complete
darkness, but to do it with the lights on and my eyes open, by
ignoring what I see. *I* couldn't know if I was cheating.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In rec.arts.sf.written Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> Nate Edel <archmage@sfchat.org> wrote:
> > Keith F. Lynch <kfl@keithlynch.net> wrote:
> >> I could hardly fail to act on my knowledge, unless my memory was
> >> wiped, in which case I wouldn't be me.
> >
> > OTOH, you could be threatened with severe consequences if you acted
> > on it... although I suppose being stuck back in 1920 is a pretty
> > sever consequence to begin with.
>
> I couldn't necessarily be sure whether I was acting on my future
> knowledge, or on what I would reasonably have deduced from what
> I learned since arriving in 1920. It would be like asking me to
> demonstrate my ability to navigate through my apartment in complete
> darkness, but to do it with the lights on and my eyes open, by
> ignoring what I see. *I* couldn't know if I was cheating.

A fair cop.

Whether the ASBs that put you there would be reasonable about it (presumably
meaning "won't introduce any major anachronistic inventions" sort of thing)
or whether they'd just zap you for any infraction is anyone's guess.
They're ASBs, after all.

In fiction, of course, it's whatever the author decides makes more dramatic
sense :)

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

In rec.arts.sf.written Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:13:32 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> wrote:
> >Not the stuff he uses for fillings nowadays? It's some kind of
> >resin and once he's got it in place and shaped to suit him, he
> >sets it with heat or infrared or something.
>
> UV, actually[1]. I asked.
> In the second half of the 90s, my first fillings were still amalgam.

My first/only fillings were metallic, and they were done in 2006; I assume
it's amalgam of some low-mercury sort. They're on molars, so not really
visible.

--
Nate Edel http://www.cubiclehermit.com/
preferred email |
is "nate" at the | "This is not a funny signature... or is it?"
posting domain |

Nate Edel wrote:
> In rec.arts.sf.written Jasper Janssen <jasper@jjanssen.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:13:32 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Not the stuff he uses for fillings nowadays? It's some kind of
>>>resin and once he's got it in place and shaped to suit him, he
>>>sets it with heat or infrared or something.
>>
>>UV, actually[1]. I asked.
>>In the second half of the 90s, my first fillings were still amalgam.
>
>
> My first/only fillings were metallic, and they were done in 2006; I assume
> it's amalgam of some low-mercury sort. They're on molars, so not really
> visible.
>

My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
banned or restricted.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
<seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>banned or restricted.

He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
mouth.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>> and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>> banned or restricted.
>
> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
> mouth.

Since there are no known cases, I think that's a safe bet.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html

Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>>and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>>banned or restricted.
>
>
> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
> mouth.

In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past year for
dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health threat.
Which somewhat surprised me, given the high concentration of mercury,
but the evidence is pretty clear.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

In article <4772DEB5.3010508@sgeObviousinc.com>,
Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
>> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>>>and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>>>banned or restricted.
>>
>>
>> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
>> mouth.
>
> In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past year for
>dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
>properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health threat.
>Which somewhat surprised me, given the high concentration of mercury,
>but the evidence is pretty clear.

Kurt Busiek has had extensive health problems that seem to have been
related to having mercury in his mouth. I'm sure he can fill in
the details better than I can.

--
David Goldfarb | "Oh no, foolish Jed, you have let out
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu | the verbal gerbils!"
goldfarb@csua.berkeley.edu | -- _Sandman_ #11

goldfarb@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote in
news:fkun6n$24uh$1@agate.berkeley.edu:

> In article <4772DEB5.3010508@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
>>> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the
>>>> most part,
>>>>and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get
>>>>it banned or restricted.
>>>
>>>
>>> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury
>>> in yer mouth.
>>
>> In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past
>> year for
>>dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
>>properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health
>>threat. Which somewhat surprised me, given the high
>>concentration of mercury, but the evidence is pretty clear.
>
> Kurt Busiek has had extensive health problems that seem to have
> been related to having mercury in his mouth. I'm sure he can
> fill in the details better than I can.
>
Note the key phrase "properly used." Improperly used, there are
some risks. The same is true of pretty much everything we use, for
every purpose, every day of our lives.

--
Terry Austin

"There's no law west of the internet."
- Nick Stump

On 2007-12-26 15:13:27 -0800, goldfarb@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) said:

> In article <4772DEB5.3010508@sgeObviousinc.com>,
> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
>>> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>>>> and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>>>> banned or restricted.
>>>
>>>
>>> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
>>> mouth.
>>
>> In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past year for
>> dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
>> properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health threat.
>> Which somewhat surprised me, given the high concentration of mercury,
>> but the evidence is pretty clear.
>
> Kurt Busiek has had extensive health problems that seem to have been
> related to having mercury in his mouth. I'm sure he can fill in
> the details better than I can.

I was diagnosed with mercury poisoning, but all that can be said for
sure is that it's my doctors' best guess that it came from my fillings
-- I've lived too many places to rule out some other kind of exposure.

If I had to guess, I'd say that they were improperly-prepared amalgam
fillings, but I can't say it to a legal certainty. My turnaround in
health can be marked from the time my fillings were replaced and I
underwent several rounds of chelation, so if my kids ever need
fillings, they're gonna get composite, not amalgam. But whether the
fillings were the culprit, whether they were fine but the chelation got
rid of mercury from another source, whether I'm peculiarly sensitive or
whether it's all witch-doctorin' crap that nonetheless improved my
health and got me writing more ambitiously and successfully again, I
can't say. The facts regarding mercury are much in dispute, and have
been since before the ADA existed.

I'm just glad that whatever it was, it had a good effect on me, and
I'll let others fight over whether mercury is the cause of all western
society's ills, or utterly harmless when stuck in our teeth.

I won't put any more of it in my personal teeth, though.

kdb

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:43:14 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics>
wrote:

>On 2007-12-26 15:13:27 -0800, goldfarb@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) said:
>
>> In article <4772DEB5.3010508@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>> Jasper Janssen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:58 -0500, Sea Wasp
>>>> <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> My fillings are amalgam, my dentist still uses it for the most part,
>>>>> and is rather annoyed by the panicmongers who've tried to get it
>>>>> banned or restricted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He's probably never had medical problems from too much mercury in yer
>>>> mouth.
>>>
>>> In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past year for
>>> dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
>>> properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health threat.
>>> Which somewhat surprised me, given the high concentration of mercury,
>>> but the evidence is pretty clear.
>>
>> Kurt Busiek has had extensive health problems that seem to have been
>> related to having mercury in his mouth. I'm sure he can fill in
>> the details better than I can.
>
>I was diagnosed with mercury poisoning, but all that can be said for
>sure is that it's my doctors' best guess that it came from my fillings
>-- I've lived too many places to rule out some other kind of exposure.
>
>If I had to guess, I'd say that they were improperly-prepared amalgam
>fillings, but I can't say it to a legal certainty. My turnaround in
>health can be marked from the time my fillings were replaced and I
>underwent several rounds of chelation, so if my kids ever need
>fillings, they're gonna get composite, not amalgam. But whether the
>fillings were the culprit, whether they were fine but the chelation got
>rid of mercury from another source, whether I'm peculiarly sensitive or
>whether it's all witch-doctorin' crap that nonetheless improved my
>health and got me writing more ambitiously and successfully again, I
>can't say. The facts regarding mercury are much in dispute, and have
>been since before the ADA existed.
>
>I'm just glad that whatever it was, it had a good effect on me, and
>I'll let others fight over whether mercury is the cause of all western
>society's ills, or utterly harmless when stuck in our teeth.
>
>I won't put any more of it in my personal teeth, though.
>
For anyone seriously interested in the pros and cons of various
filling types, this seems to have a pretty good description of them:

http://www.webmd.com/oral-health/guide/dental-health-fillings

Rebecca

Kurt Busiek wrote:
> On 2007-12-26 15:13:27 -0800, goldfarb@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb)
> said:
>
>> In article <4772DEB5.3010508@sgeObviousinc.com>,
>> Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:

>>> In the fairly extensive research I had to do in the past year for
>>> dental-related material, I came across no credible evidence that
>>> properly-used amalgam does, or has ever, presented any health threat.
>>> Which somewhat surprised me, given the high concentration of mercury,
>>> but the evidence is pretty clear.

>> Kurt Busiek has had extensive health problems that seem to have been
>> related to having mercury in his mouth. I'm sure he can fill in
>> the details better than I can.

> I was diagnosed with mercury poisoning, but all that can be said for
> sure is that it's my doctors' best guess that it came from my fillings
> -- I've lived too many places to rule out some other kind of exposure.
>
> If I had to guess, I'd say that they were improperly-prepared amalgam
> fillings, but I can't say it to a legal certainty. My turnaround in
> health can be marked from the time my fillings were replaced and I
> underwent several rounds of chelation, so if my kids ever need fillings,
> they're gonna get composite, not amalgam. But whether the fillings were
> the culprit, whether they were fine but the chelation got rid of mercury
> from another source, whether I'm peculiarly sensitive or whether it's
> all witch-doctorin' crap that nonetheless improved my health and got me
> writing more ambitiously and successfully again, I can't say. The facts
> regarding mercury are much in dispute, and have been since before the
> ADA existed.
>
> I'm just glad that whatever it was, it had a good effect on me, and I'll
> let others fight over whether mercury is the cause of all western
> society's ills, or utterly harmless when stuck in our teeth.
>
> I won't put any more of it in my personal teeth, though.


All of this is sensible, well-said, and makes perfect sense for
personal decisions. It's nice to see someone NOT trying to assert that
their personal experience and suspicions amount to proof of something
-- thanks, Kurt. In your position, I probably wouldn't use amalgam or
allow it in my kids either.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:43:14 -0800, Kurt Busiek <kurt@busiek.comics>
wrote:

>I'm just glad that whatever it was, it had a good effect on me, and
>I'll let others fight over whether mercury is the cause of all western
>society's ills, or utterly harmless when stuck in our teeth.
>
>I won't put any more of it in my personal teeth, though.

Pretty much where I am.

Jasper

In article <Xns9A129DA4FEF50taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> said:

> Note the key phrase "properly used." Improperly used, there are
> some risks. The same is true of pretty much everything we use, for
> every purpose, every day of our lives.

I hear some guy's even trying to prove that about Usenet.

-- wds

wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:fl1h9d$7kd$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> In article <Xns9A129DA4FEF50taustingmail@216.168.3.64>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <terry.notaniceperson@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Note the key phrase "properly used." Improperly used, there are
>> some risks. The same is true of pretty much everything we use, for
>> every purpose, every day of our lives.
>
> I hear some guy's even trying to prove that about Usenet.
>
If ever there was a waste of taxyaper money doing pointless research in to
the obvious . . .

--
Terry Austin
Beware the other head of science. It bites.

On 2007-12-20, Walter Bushell <proto@oanix.com> wrote:
> In article <JtBsA8.My0@kithrup.com>,
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>> In article <64ijm39om4hur28ls2ec5krvcrrb4eifnv@4ax.com>,
>> <philospher77@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >And which is the one that has the possibility of making men sterile if
>> >they get it as an adult instead of a kid?
>>
>> That's mumps.
>
> I thought mumps was software for hospitals.

Any version will make you sick.