Re: Why chromium ions don't really worry me (long and bori...

[Guest guest]

Amen, dude.

Des Tuck

In a message dated 1/19/2004 2:26:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

sog@... writes:

I'm just dubious about differences in non-urinary excretion being enough

to account for the difference in Co and Cr serum and urine levels. I

think that there's probably also a significant difference in initial

uptake of the two metals which accounts for much of the difference in

these levels.

However, we're straying a tiny bit from my initial point:

1) Even if all the chromium wear products were oxidized to Cr(III) and

went into the bloodstream, you'd still be exposed to much less than

currently recognized " official " lifetime safe doses.

2) Even if all the cobalt wear products were oxidized and went into

the bloodstream, your absorbed dosage would be less than the EPA

will allow

you to get from your tap water, and far less than the doses

reported to cause toxicity in any animal or human studies I could

find. Since there's no chronic reference dose for cobalt, it's

not possible to make the same definitive statement about cobalt

as chromium.

Based on (1) and (2), I'm not going to fret about ion levels - but

that's a personal decision on my part. I'd love to wait for long-term

clinical studies on resurfacing patients, but I'm not willing to either:

(1) waste years of my life in agonizingly painful " watchful waiting "

(2) make the irreversible decision to get two non-MoM THRs, with all

the activity restrictions (and surgical risk from multiple

revision THRs) that this decision implies for someone my age (48)

just because of what seems to me to be a miniscule risk of ion

exposure

while waiting for the final data. If the ion studies show chronically

unacceptable levels of these substances, then I can always get the

resurfacings revised to primary THRs down the road. Conservation of

matter and simple arithmetic suggest to me that this eventuality is

pretty unlikely. Not impossible, mind you, but very, very unlikely.

ly, I think I'm far more likely to suffer adverse health

consequences from the activity restrictions of a THR and the risk of

multiple revisions than I am from ion exposure. And that doesn't even

account for quality of life differences.

To be perfectly blunt, I want my life back (to quote what seems to be

the unofficial motto of this group).

[Guest guest]

I LIKE THE PAIN!!!!!!!

In a message dated 1/19/2004 2:47:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,

sog@... writes:

Yeah, but anyone who has trained karate as long as either you

or I (32 years and counting) has to be a little bit masochistic. ;-)

[Guest guest]

> Au contraire, this is fascinating.

Yeah, but anyone who has trained karate as long as either you

or I (32 years and counting) has to be a little bit masochistic. ;-)

Steve

[Guest guest]

Yes, keep this discussion on-list. It is interesting. The metallurgy

on the Midlands Medical Technology website (for the BHR) was one of

the key factors that made me agree enthusiastically to my Brisbane

surgeon's offer of the m-o-m components. The website summaries were

great, too, but the metallurgy added the " wow " factor.

I think in one of two previous messages I accidentally typed in

the *wrong* hip - the right one is the right one.

Virginia (right hip, 27/08/03)

> Au contraire, this is fascinating.

>

> Des Tuck

>

>

> In a message dated 1/19/2004 1:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,

> sog@s... writes:

> We should probably take this off-list before we put everyone else to

> sleep.

>

>

>