Talk:Breast implant/Archive 1

message: Is this article about Breast Implants or Breast Implants available in the US? The section of different types of Breast Implants is heavily biased to the US. After every paragraph it states ... "not currently available in the US". This isn't the Wiki-way. --None-of-the-Above 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I changed some of it. I think there should be a bit of a bias towards the US. It can be argued that breast implants are an "American thing". Whatever that means? --Janto 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that Brazil, not the United States, has the highest cosmetic surgery rate per capita - I'd guess a lot of these are implants. (I can't find a source, but I've heard this more than once, so I'm reasonably confident...) — stillnotelf has a talk page 23:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about Breast Implants or Breast Implants available in the US? 

message: I know from a releative who works in a breast cancer unit that impalsnts make mamography harder. Does anyone know the X-ray absroption coeffients for human breast tissue and for silicone. It would be interesting to see the data for these. Normally mamography is done with Mo-K x-rays so I know what wavelength to use for the calculations. If anyone has the data please then get in touch via cadmium's talk page .Cadmium 18:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  radiography 

message: Why are some implants submuscular? (please answer by editing article) --Gbleem 21:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  sub muscular  

message: The article says "In 2002, 236,888 women in the U.S. underwent breast augmentation." Unfortunately, the link is broken. Is this really correct? Since there are about 2,000,000 women per year, and I assume implants are done once in a lifetime, this would mean 12% of all women underwent augmentation. Seems a lot to me, given that it's controversial. Common Man 15:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: statistics

message: Is there a type of augmentation mammoplasty that tries to simulate the realistic or natural look of large breasts, i.e. a shape that hangs, as opposed to being all completely spherical and artificial-looking.--Sonjaaa 19:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hanging implants

message: While I'm no fan of insurance companies, that is not an accurate statement. Most insurance co. investments are diversified enough that there is little fluctuation in investment income from routine economic cycles. What does change rapidly and unpredictably are med-mal claim payouts.
It's pretty simple to watch this in play in real life as you can compare the premiums in states with favorable tort-reform (Indiana, California) to their neighbors which don't.
Droliver 14:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re. 

message: I'm sorry but you don't get to replace your suspicions about the medical establishment in a NPOV on this topic. The most and most recent data does not support your or JGlaws view. That is how it should be presented. In a review of this topic putting in a controversial person like Dr. Vasey is not appropriate other then possible as a reference.   
:: Dr. Vasey's discussion is most appropriate.  The Ombudsman is the Ombudsman of this site, not you.   Go put up your own site on Breast Implants, and advertise there.  If you want to advertise on your own site, I would also suggest some spelling lessons. 65.89.98.20 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note, the Wiki does not have an official ombudsman.  The open source format, along with user advocates and the like, provides more than an adequate range of options to ensure viewpoints are at least heard and considered.  Ombudsman institutions typically only arise when there is an unduly authoritarian organizational culture, and/or a decided lack of administrative transparancy.  NPOV dictates that noteworthy criticisms and concerns must be covered.  Period.  That is one of the underlying beauties of the Wiki.  Ombudsman 17:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ombudsman is a misleading name which has been remarked on previously.  Midgley 02:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plastic Surgeon to Ombudsman

message: "An estimated 110,000 women or more received this type of implant before it was largely discontinued in the early 1990's."  Won't do, will it.  Is the estimate 110,000, do we estimate at least 110000, or what?  Where does the estimate come from?  "Dow Corning/FDA/women's front for frontal liberation estimated that around ..."  would all be better.  Data?  Midgley 17:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This figure is available in the adjacent reference () next to the passage 65.89.98.20 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not available to me without an effort, and something that the artile could reasonably be corrected on, by someone who has pulled that journal from teh library.  Midgley 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many Polyurethane?