[WPRESTO]

Considering every single hospital patient has a medical procedure and many of them die anyway, in our litigious culture I’m not surprised lawyers convince families that any death is the result of an error and they should sue (at 40% Contingent Award).

The fairly recent legal decision that really bothers me is the supposed link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Talc is a biologically inert mineral SFAIK, potentially dangerous to breath as it might accumulate in the lungs somewhat like silicosis, but SFAIK, there are no laboratory experiments linking it to any form of cancer either in the lungs or the reproductive system.. On the other hand, how many women who come down with ovarian cancer have been exposed to talcum powder, applied by their mothers, applied by the women to themselves, applied by the women to their infants or all of these exposures combined? It's a lawyer's dream come true and advertisements on TV indicate many lawyers are hungry to get cases.

Many decades ago I remember seeing the results of a poll indicating that something like 70 to 80% of Americans regarded an opportunity to sue as a windfall equivalent to winning a lottery.

[monochrome]

The fairly recent legal decision that really bothers me is the supposed link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Talc is a biologically inert mineral SFAIK, potentially dangerous to breath as it might accumulate in the lungs somewhat like silicosis, but SFAIK, there are no laboratory experiments linking it to any form of cancer either in the lungs or the reproductive system.. On the other hand, how many women who come down with ovarian cancer have been exposed to talcum powder, applied by their mothers, applied by the women to themselves, applied by the women to their infants or all of these exposures combined? It's a lawyer's dream come true and advertisements on TV indicate many lawyers are hungry to get cases.

Many decades ago I remember seeing the results of a poll indicating that something like 70 to 80% of Americans regarded an opportunity to sue as a windfall equivalent to winning a lottery.

J&J had a baby powder plant in the 30’s that had some asbestos insulation. An attorney convinced a judge to allow discovery of every single record in J&J’s entire corporate history. There was a reference to the plant - that was closed before any of the claimants was alive to use the product - and attorneys allege a coverup by J&J. There has been no actual, repeatable discovery of asbestos in any talcum powder product (the recent “BelowTrace” reading cannot be replicated in the batch of talcum powder that was cited by the FDA).

But cancer from talcum powder in panties is a thing now and juries figure the company can afford to pay the money. (They foirget their 401k owns JNJ stock)

[Liney]

The fairly recent legal decision that really bothers me is the supposed link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Talc is a biologically inert mineral SFAIK, potentially dangerous to breath as it might accumulate in the lungs somewhat like silicosis, but SFAIK, there are no laboratory experiments linking it to any form of cancer either in the lungs or the reproductive system.. On the other hand, how many women who come down with ovarian cancer have been exposed to talcum powder, applied by their mothers, applied by the women to themselves, applied by the women to their infants or all of these exposures combined? It's a lawyer's dream come true and advertisements on TV indicate many lawyers are hungry to get cases.

Many decades ago I remember seeing the results of a poll indicating that something like 70 to 80% of Americans regarded an opportunity to sue as a windfall equivalent to winning a lottery.

I read a rather interesting paper a couple of years ago that was published by John Hopkins I think. It basically concluded that, with the exception of one or two very specific types of cancer, the chances of you contracting any other form were down to pure bad luck. And let's be clear, being exposed to a material classed as a carcinogen will only increase your chance of cancer. Exposure does not guarantee anything! I've read of people who have lived in areas of naturally occurring asbestos for decades with no issue, smokers in their eighties and nineties without lung cancer, and yet if you get the diagnosis everyone immediately tries to work out where they got exposed to something and sue people.

[Canada_Rockies]

I read a rather interesting paper a couple of years ago that was published by John Hopkins I think. It basically concluded that, with the exception of one or two very specific types of cancer, the chances of you contracting any other form were down to pure bad luck. And let's be clear, being exposed to a material classed as a carcinogen will only increase your chance of cancer. Exposure does not guarantee anything! I've read of people who have lived in areas of naturally occurring asbestos for decades with no issue, smokers in their eighties and nineties without lung cancer, and yet if you get the diagnosis everyone immediately tries to work out where they got exposed to something and sue people.

My father started smoking at 13. He quit at 100.5 yo because nobody in the home had time to take him out to smoke.
I smaoked as many as 3 packs of English Players (Think Export A but not as raw tasting) until I quite 20 odd years ago (with extreme difficulty, I may add). My lungs are clear. My wife has never smoked, but lived with smokers all her life until I quit and suffers from COPD.
If I remember the odds correctly 1 in 4 is susceptible to lung cancer and 1 in 4 is immune.

My favourite lawyer joke:
You know its cold outside when a lawyer has his hands in his own pockets.

Ducking and running.

[Grippy]

Well as I suspected the Industar with the L39 mount is just an extra extension tube added on, a little work with a tiny drill bit in the Dremel to drill out the grub screw and I was able to unscrew it, revealing the original M39 mount, easy as. There was an extension thing glued to the inside of the lens too, a little work with a Dremel cut off wheel and she's good to go. On the K50 it makes a great little lightweight combo.
Yes the poor little fella has fingerprints and smudges all over the front, haha
P3II1767
P3II1771

[Lhorn]

Mt latest acquisition is that I finally got off my butt and bought a genuine Pentax M42 to K mount adapter. Eager to try my Super Takumar 200/f4 and 55/2.0 on my K mount bodies. It's also a good excuse to pick up a Super Takumar 135.

[M.B.Yates]

My Latest Aquisition was the DFA 15-30 great lens .... Just need the 600 f4 and DFA 50mm 1.4 to complete my line up...

[VILLAINofOZ]

My Latest acquisitions as of yesterday are a Cactus RF60 Flash & 2x V6 Wireless flash transceivers.
These are to replace my Acon R930 Trensceiver & Receivers. I will probably keep my 2x Sigma EF530 DG ST flash's even though my excuse was to replace them with the Cactus unit.
I hope all works out well.
I went on a bit of a spending spree and also purchased a SMC Pentax-DA 21mm F3.2 Limited which I am sure to be happy with.

[Grippy]

And the mint Helios I picked up
P3II1777

[-JW-]

Over the course of about 4 months:

- FA*24
- F 28
- FA 35
- FA 50
- FA* 28-70

Getting my hands on these were enough reason to give in and finally buy a K1-II.
(Next to these I already had the FA31 and the DA70 to use on the K1)

Looking to get the FA43, FA77 and FA20 now.

For the last one I just missed an amazing deal, somebody sold it for €60, not knowing the real value.
Even after telling him I was willing to pay €250 for it, he still sold it to the first person he made a deal with, honest man...

[Jonathan Mac]

The Sigma 28-135mm arrived yesterday. I was impressed at how well built it was, considering the reviews I'd read but the focus was extremely difficult to move, I could barely budge it, so it's going back.

Two rolls of Kentmere Pan 400 just arrived as I can't find my film stash at my parents-in-law's place and have a hankering to shoot some despite my massive backlog in developing and scanning. Kentmere was the only film on Amazon Spain that didn't have a ridiculous price.

[steamloco76]

I finally succeeded in replacing the SMC-A 35-105/3.5 hole in my collection after three tries. Returned the first because the zoom ring wouldn’t go past 70mm. Lens two was full of funky fungus (posted about on the thread). Try number three came with a ME Super, M50/1.7 and 28/3.5. All are keepers. The 35-105 is as good as I remember from shooting one on film in the 80s and 90s until it died in a drop to the concrete accident. PS. I have better luck buying camera lot to get the lenses than buying just the lens.

[tim60]

In the late '70's I was working with an IBM that had 10 Mb pie plate stacks.

In the 90 s I had a boss who took home the disc from the department’s first 10MB HD to make a coffee table. He would need a big room, by England standards, to put it in. About 4’6” diameter.

[tim60]

The fairly recent legal decision that really bothers me is the supposed link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer. Talc is a biologically inert mineral SFAIK, potentially dangerous to breath as it might accumulate in the lungs somewhat like silicosis, but SFAIK, there are no laboratory experiments linking it to any form of cancer either in the lungs or the reproductive system.. On the other hand, how many women who come down with ovarian cancer have been exposed to talcum powder, applied by their mothers, applied by the women to themselves, applied by the women to their infants or all of these exposures combined? It's a lawyer's dream come true and advertisements on TV indicate many lawyers are hungry to get cases.

Many decades ago I remember seeing the results of a poll indicating that something like 70 to 80% of Americans regarded an opportunity to sue as a windfall equivalent to winning a lottery.

Asbestos was a desirable building material because of its inertness and then it was found to be the causal factor in a nasty cancer.

[tim60]

I intended my Christmas present to myself to be the micro-4/3 body I got a couple of weeks ago, but as usual life intervened and it ended up being new glasses - I lost my last pair on the Thursday before Christmas, then found that the only spare pair I had left were sunglasses and almost useless indoors or outdoors at this time of year. Although I was pretty sure my glasses were somewhere in the flat, they were at least six or seven years old and in fairly poor condition, so I decided to replace them - went to Specsavers the next day and ordered two pairs with varifocus lenses, anti-everything coatings, etc. for about £345 total. Did NOT make the mistake of buying another pair of sunglasses! Since I no longer drive I didn't find it a huge hardship to go without, apart from having to adjust the viewfinder of every camera I used during the week.

Needless to say I eventually found my old glasses, at about midnight on Boxing Day (Dec 26th for the non-Brits); they were in a box of camera gear I'd moved the day they went missing - I thought I'd checked it, but they were right at the bottom under an old Zenit body. When I put them on after a week without it became VERY clear that the prescription was far from right - I really found it very difficult to adapt to them. Fortunately the new glasses were ready the next day (Friday 27th) so I got them, and they're definitely a big improvement.

Not exactly what I expected to do with my money, but at least I am now feeling very mean, which is good because I need to renew my house insurance on Monday and I want to be in a mood to haggle...

I got that deal from those guys early in the year. 4 years after the pair they replaced. Significant change of prescription.