<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_1614245</id>
	<title>CT Scan "Reset Error" Gives 206 Patients Radiation Overdose</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255538460000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jeffb (2.718) writes <i>"As the LA Times reports, 206 patients receiving CT scans at Cedar Sinai hospital <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars13-2009oct13,0,1200257.story">received up to eight times the X-ray exposure doctors intended</a>.  (The <a href="http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm">FDA alert</a> gives details about the doses involved.)  A misunderstanding over an 'embedded default setting' appears to have led to the error, which occurred when the hospital 'began using a new protocol for a specialized type of scan used to diagnose strokes. Doctors believed it would provide them more useful data to analyze disruptions in the flow of blood to brain tissue.' Human-computer interaction classes from the late 1980s onward have pounded home the lesson of the <a href="http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac\_25/Therac\_1.html">Therac-25</a>, the usability issues of which led to multiple deaths. Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jeffb ( 2.718 ) writes " As the LA Times reports , 206 patients receiving CT scans at Cedar Sinai hospital received up to eight times the X-ray exposure doctors intended .
( The FDA alert gives details about the doses involved .
) A misunderstanding over an 'embedded default setting ' appears to have led to the error , which occurred when the hospital 'began using a new protocol for a specialized type of scan used to diagnose strokes .
Doctors believed it would provide them more useful data to analyze disruptions in the flow of blood to brain tissue .
' Human-computer interaction classes from the late 1980s onward have pounded home the lesson of the Therac-25 , the usability issues of which led to multiple deaths .
Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jeffb (2.718) writes "As the LA Times reports, 206 patients receiving CT scans at Cedar Sinai hospital received up to eight times the X-ray exposure doctors intended.
(The FDA alert gives details about the doses involved.
)  A misunderstanding over an 'embedded default setting' appears to have led to the error, which occurred when the hospital 'began using a new protocol for a specialized type of scan used to diagnose strokes.
Doctors believed it would provide them more useful data to analyze disruptions in the flow of blood to brain tissue.
' Human-computer interaction classes from the late 1980s onward have pounded home the lesson of the Therac-25, the usability issues of which led to multiple deaths.
Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748815</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>2gravey</author>
	<datestamp>1255552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ONLY a factor of 8 difference?  That's a pretty huge difference.  A change that great can turn just about any normal activity dangerous.  Can you eat 2 hot dogs/tofu dogs at a sitting?  Let's see how you feel after 16.  Is it chilly in your house/apartment?  Maybe you should increase  the thermostat from 60F to 480F. Why stop at 3 shots of Tequila?  Let's have 24.  I could continue shaming you my multiplication prowess all day, but I suspect you've had enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>ONLY a factor of 8 difference ?
That 's a pretty huge difference .
A change that great can turn just about any normal activity dangerous .
Can you eat 2 hot dogs/tofu dogs at a sitting ?
Let 's see how you feel after 16 .
Is it chilly in your house/apartment ?
Maybe you should increase the thermostat from 60F to 480F .
Why stop at 3 shots of Tequila ?
Let 's have 24 .
I could continue shaming you my multiplication prowess all day , but I suspect you 've had enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ONLY a factor of 8 difference?
That's a pretty huge difference.
A change that great can turn just about any normal activity dangerous.
Can you eat 2 hot dogs/tofu dogs at a sitting?
Let's see how you feel after 16.
Is it chilly in your house/apartment?
Maybe you should increase  the thermostat from 60F to 480F.
Why stop at 3 shots of Tequila?
Let's have 24.
I could continue shaming you my multiplication prowess all day, but I suspect you've had enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746719</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1255543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well think about it for a sec. They're getting high resolution images of tissue and fluid, not just bone.<br><br>You would expect that to require large, large doses to achieve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well think about it for a sec .
They 're getting high resolution images of tissue and fluid , not just bone.You would expect that to require large , large doses to achieve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well think about it for a sec.
They're getting high resolution images of tissue and fluid, not just bone.You would expect that to require large, large doses to achieve.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751773</id>
	<title>Re:What is amazing</title>
	<author>El\_Oscuro</author>
	<datestamp>1255526520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree.</p><p>Years ago, I walked into my doctors office and complained of the following symptoms:</p><ol>
<li>Loss of weight (20 pounds in 2 mounts, and I was skinny to begin with), despite eating like crazy</li>
<li>Suddenly have to go to the bathroom all the time (every 15-30 minutes)</li>
<li>Always thirsty</li>
<li>Always hungry</li>
</ol><p>These should have set off all kinds of alarm-bells in anyone who has known anyone with diabetes, much less a doctor.  Instead, he suggested I increase my eating (if that was possible) and call him in 2 weeks.</p><p>I said: "No, there is something wrong (I didn't know the symptoms of diabetes) and you need to run some sort of tests.  Dutifully, he did and I got a call from the hospital a few days later indicating my fasting blood sugar was 465 and that I should report immediately.  I was put on insulin therapy and have yelled at my doctors many times since.  These days, I can tell my doctor the A1C before they even run the test.</p><p>I know enough people with similar experiences to dismiss this as a fluke.  Listen to your body.  If your doctor doesn't agree and won't run tests, get a second opinion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree.Years ago , I walked into my doctors office and complained of the following symptoms : Loss of weight ( 20 pounds in 2 mounts , and I was skinny to begin with ) , despite eating like crazy Suddenly have to go to the bathroom all the time ( every 15-30 minutes ) Always thirsty Always hungry These should have set off all kinds of alarm-bells in anyone who has known anyone with diabetes , much less a doctor .
Instead , he suggested I increase my eating ( if that was possible ) and call him in 2 weeks.I said : " No , there is something wrong ( I did n't know the symptoms of diabetes ) and you need to run some sort of tests .
Dutifully , he did and I got a call from the hospital a few days later indicating my fasting blood sugar was 465 and that I should report immediately .
I was put on insulin therapy and have yelled at my doctors many times since .
These days , I can tell my doctor the A1C before they even run the test.I know enough people with similar experiences to dismiss this as a fluke .
Listen to your body .
If your doctor does n't agree and wo n't run tests , get a second opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.Years ago, I walked into my doctors office and complained of the following symptoms:
Loss of weight (20 pounds in 2 mounts, and I was skinny to begin with), despite eating like crazy
Suddenly have to go to the bathroom all the time (every 15-30 minutes)
Always thirsty
Always hungry
These should have set off all kinds of alarm-bells in anyone who has known anyone with diabetes, much less a doctor.
Instead, he suggested I increase my eating (if that was possible) and call him in 2 weeks.I said: "No, there is something wrong (I didn't know the symptoms of diabetes) and you need to run some sort of tests.
Dutifully, he did and I got a call from the hospital a few days later indicating my fasting blood sugar was 465 and that I should report immediately.
I was put on insulin therapy and have yelled at my doctors many times since.
These days, I can tell my doctor the A1C before they even run the test.I know enough people with similar experiences to dismiss this as a fluke.
Listen to your body.
If your doctor doesn't agree and won't run tests, get a second opinion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746793</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29775545</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>nica</author>
	<datestamp>1255712580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It pains me to see a good post using the word "leverage" in such a bad way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It pains me to see a good post using the word " leverage " in such a bad way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It pains me to see a good post using the word "leverage" in such a bad way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746531</id>
	<title>not idiot proof enough</title>
	<author>HNS-I</author>
	<datestamp>1255542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While the hospital shouldn't have gone and reprogram the instructions, this should have been prevented at hardware level. The machine should register a patient checking in and the amount of radiation emitted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While the hospital should n't have gone and reprogram the instructions , this should have been prevented at hardware level .
The machine should register a patient checking in and the amount of radiation emitted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While the hospital shouldn't have gone and reprogram the instructions, this should have been prevented at hardware level.
The machine should register a patient checking in and the amount of radiation emitted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749183</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Wilson\_6500</author>
	<datestamp>1255511040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A factor of 8 is almost a factor of ten, and that's a whole order of magnitude.<br> <br>

There's a pretty big difference between a dose of 1 Sv and 0.1 Sv. Even ten doses of 0.1 Sv and one 1 Sv dose aren't the same thing, depending on how long you wait between the split doses. <br> <br>

Still, even 100 mSv is a lot of radiation for one CT scan. This wasn't really a typical CT. Typical head CT should give more like 1 mSv, I think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A factor of 8 is almost a factor of ten , and that 's a whole order of magnitude .
There 's a pretty big difference between a dose of 1 Sv and 0.1 Sv .
Even ten doses of 0.1 Sv and one 1 Sv dose are n't the same thing , depending on how long you wait between the split doses .
Still , even 100 mSv is a lot of radiation for one CT scan .
This was n't really a typical CT. Typical head CT should give more like 1 mSv , I think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A factor of 8 is almost a factor of ten, and that's a whole order of magnitude.
There's a pretty big difference between a dose of 1 Sv and 0.1 Sv.
Even ten doses of 0.1 Sv and one 1 Sv dose aren't the same thing, depending on how long you wait between the split doses.
Still, even 100 mSv is a lot of radiation for one CT scan.
This wasn't really a typical CT. Typical head CT should give more like 1 mSv, I think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747799</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1255548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be "Emit zero radiation". Then for each exposure, set the level of radiation you intend to use. This way, you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>How about requiring them to type the radiation value as words AND numbers? So "fifty five millirems" and "55 mrem" (or whatever the units are). But then you run into the problem, like with Windows asking too many questions: users tire of the verbosity, and find ways of avoiding it. Verbosity also hides important information in the sea of noise. Maybe they'd use copy-and-paste here to speed it up.

</p><p>Here, it seems a good approach would be to display the dosage in multiple ways, like a color or shape, so that the wrong setting would be more likely noticed, and look different than the right one. A doctor has in mind the dose that he intends, and would come to expect a certain color or shape. Seeing one that looks very different would be jarring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be " Emit zero radiation " .
Then for each exposure , set the level of radiation you intend to use .
This way , you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit .
How about requiring them to type the radiation value as words AND numbers ?
So " fifty five millirems " and " 55 mrem " ( or whatever the units are ) .
But then you run into the problem , like with Windows asking too many questions : users tire of the verbosity , and find ways of avoiding it .
Verbosity also hides important information in the sea of noise .
Maybe they 'd use copy-and-paste here to speed it up .
Here , it seems a good approach would be to display the dosage in multiple ways , like a color or shape , so that the wrong setting would be more likely noticed , and look different than the right one .
A doctor has in mind the dose that he intends , and would come to expect a certain color or shape .
Seeing one that looks very different would be jarring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be "Emit zero radiation".
Then for each exposure, set the level of radiation you intend to use.
This way, you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit.
How about requiring them to type the radiation value as words AND numbers?
So "fifty five millirems" and "55 mrem" (or whatever the units are).
But then you run into the problem, like with Windows asking too many questions: users tire of the verbosity, and find ways of avoiding it.
Verbosity also hides important information in the sea of noise.
Maybe they'd use copy-and-paste here to speed it up.
Here, it seems a good approach would be to display the dosage in multiple ways, like a color or shape, so that the wrong setting would be more likely noticed, and look different than the right one.
A doctor has in mind the dose that he intends, and would come to expect a certain color or shape.
Seeing one that looks very different would be jarring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283</id>
	<title>Some quantitative perspective</title>
	<author>goodmanj</author>
	<datestamp>1255550340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Typical normal CT scan dose: 1-2 rem<br>Faulty CT scan overdose: 8-16 rem<br>1950s shoe-salesman's fluoroscope: 10 rem<br>Typical normal Therac-25 dose: 200 rem<br>Malfunctioning Therac-25 dose: 15-20,000 rem</p><p>Come on, seriously people.  Yes, this is a mistake that needs to be fixed, but millions of kids in the '50s got their feet nuked with this much radiation and lived to become healthy normal adults with normal feet.</p><p>The Therac-25 cooked straight through people, leaving a hole of rotting meat behind.  This is not even remotely in the same league.</p><p><a href="http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html" title="rcn.com">http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html</a> [rcn.com]<br><a href="http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/107/1/113.full.pdf" title="chestpubs.org">http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/107/1/113.full.pdf</a> [chestpubs.org]<br><a href="http://www.ccnr.org/fatal\_dose.html" title="ccnr.org">http://www.ccnr.org/fatal\_dose.html</a> [ccnr.org]<br><a href="http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm" title="orau.org">http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm</a> [orau.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Typical normal CT scan dose : 1-2 remFaulty CT scan overdose : 8-16 rem1950s shoe-salesman 's fluoroscope : 10 remTypical normal Therac-25 dose : 200 remMalfunctioning Therac-25 dose : 15-20,000 remCome on , seriously people .
Yes , this is a mistake that needs to be fixed , but millions of kids in the '50s got their feet nuked with this much radiation and lived to become healthy normal adults with normal feet.The Therac-25 cooked straight through people , leaving a hole of rotting meat behind .
This is not even remotely in the same league.http : //users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html [ rcn.com ] http : //chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/107/1/113.full.pdf [ chestpubs.org ] http : //www.ccnr.org/fatal \ _dose.html [ ccnr.org ] http : //www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm [ orau.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Typical normal CT scan dose: 1-2 remFaulty CT scan overdose: 8-16 rem1950s shoe-salesman's fluoroscope: 10 remTypical normal Therac-25 dose: 200 remMalfunctioning Therac-25 dose: 15-20,000 remCome on, seriously people.
Yes, this is a mistake that needs to be fixed, but millions of kids in the '50s got their feet nuked with this much radiation and lived to become healthy normal adults with normal feet.The Therac-25 cooked straight through people, leaving a hole of rotting meat behind.
This is not even remotely in the same league.http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/R/Radiation.html [rcn.com]http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/107/1/113.full.pdf [chestpubs.org]http://www.ccnr.org/fatal\_dose.html [ccnr.org]http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm [orau.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748995</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255553340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course, it's not clear from the article WHY they were using multiple threads in the first place.  Seems like needless complexity.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it 's not clear from the article WHY they were using multiple threads in the first place .
Seems like needless complexity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it's not clear from the article WHY they were using multiple threads in the first place.
Seems like needless complexity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748055</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255549440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Murphey knew this way back in WWII. This is a perfect example of Murphey's law: If there's a wrong way to do something, someone will do it the wrong way. This is actually an example of Murphey's law in the extreme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Murphey knew this way back in WWII .
This is a perfect example of Murphey 's law : If there 's a wrong way to do something , someone will do it the wrong way .
This is actually an example of Murphey 's law in the extreme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Murphey knew this way back in WWII.
This is a perfect example of Murphey's law: If there's a wrong way to do something, someone will do it the wrong way.
This is actually an example of Murphey's law in the extreme.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477</id>
	<title>HULK MAD!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Even under normal circumstances, the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans, said David Brenner, director of radiological research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.</p></div></blockquote><p>Anyone else read this as David Banner?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even under normal circumstances , the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans , said David Brenner , director of radiological research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.Anyone else read this as David Banner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even under normal circumstances, the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans, said David Brenner, director of radiological research at Columbia University Medical Center in New York.Anyone else read this as David Banner?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>RDW</author>
	<datestamp>1255544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test'</p><p>Supposedly the actual dose would have been displayed on the machine's screen (I wonder how prominently?):</p><p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars-sinai14-2009oct14,0,5065886.story" title="latimes.com">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars-sinai14-2009oct14,0,5065886.story</a> [latimes.com]</p><p>'"It's in your face on the screen," said Dr. Donald Rucker, chief medical officer for Siemens, a manufacturer of CT scanners.'</p><p>'CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels, and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan..."There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers," said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin, a professor of radiology at Stanford University. "The user becomes a little blind to these numbers."'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test'Supposedly the actual dose would have been displayed on the machine 's screen ( I wonder how prominently ?
) : http : //www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars-sinai14-2009oct14,0,5065886.story [ latimes.com ] ' " It 's in your face on the screen , " said Dr. Donald Rucker , chief medical officer for Siemens , a manufacturer of CT scanners .
''CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels , and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan... " There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers , " said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin , a professor of radiology at Stanford University .
" The user becomes a little blind to these numbers .
" '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test'Supposedly the actual dose would have been displayed on the machine's screen (I wonder how prominently?
):http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cedars-sinai14-2009oct14,0,5065886.story [latimes.com]'"It's in your face on the screen," said Dr. Donald Rucker, chief medical officer for Siemens, a manufacturer of CT scanners.
''CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels, and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan..."There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers," said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin, a professor of radiology at Stanford University.
"The user becomes a little blind to these numbers.
"'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746875</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The setting in this issue was not lethal, but was 8x more than needed to do the diagnostic.</p><p>They had used this setup for 18 months before a patient complained about hair loss. They went back and found hundreds of people had been overdosed.</p><p>They must somehow audit the actual radiation released to cover the less-than-lethal-but-more-than-therapeutic cases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The setting in this issue was not lethal , but was 8x more than needed to do the diagnostic.They had used this setup for 18 months before a patient complained about hair loss .
They went back and found hundreds of people had been overdosed.They must somehow audit the actual radiation released to cover the less-than-lethal-but-more-than-therapeutic cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The setting in this issue was not lethal, but was 8x more than needed to do the diagnostic.They had used this setup for 18 months before a patient complained about hair loss.
They went back and found hundreds of people had been overdosed.They must somehow audit the actual radiation released to cover the less-than-lethal-but-more-than-therapeutic cases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749985</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1255514700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>While its unfortunate that this error killed people</i> </p><p>There is no mention of any deaths.</p><p> <i>Even under normal circumstances, the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans. Radiation exposure increases the likelihood of cancer, though the risk is lower in older patients because they are likely to die of other causes first.</i> </p><p> The median age of these patients is 70 years - and they are surely far more at risk of a second - more dibilitating - stroke than a cancer that might not manifest itself for another five, ten, or fifteen years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While its unfortunate that this error killed people There is no mention of any deaths .
Even under normal circumstances , the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans .
Radiation exposure increases the likelihood of cancer , though the risk is lower in older patients because they are likely to die of other causes first .
The median age of these patients is 70 years - and they are surely far more at risk of a second - more dibilitating - stroke than a cancer that might not manifest itself for another five , ten , or fifteen years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While its unfortunate that this error killed people There is no mention of any deaths.
Even under normal circumstances, the procedure requires more radiation than most other types of CT scans.
Radiation exposure increases the likelihood of cancer, though the risk is lower in older patients because they are likely to die of other causes first.
The median age of these patients is 70 years - and they are surely far more at risk of a second - more dibilitating - stroke than a cancer that might not manifest itself for another five, ten, or fifteen years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748935</id>
	<title>What does a Radiologist do?</title>
	<author>GargamelSpaceman</author>
	<datestamp>1255552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I mean, they are a doctor of some kind, but last I knew, people aren't born with RADIOs.
<p>Seriously, though, what do they do?  Look at X-Rays?  Can't a regular doctor do that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , they are a doctor of some kind , but last I knew , people are n't born with RADIOs .
Seriously , though , what do they do ?
Look at X-Rays ?
Ca n't a regular doctor do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, they are a doctor of some kind, but last I knew, people aren't born with RADIOs.
Seriously, though, what do they do?
Look at X-Rays?
Can't a regular doctor do that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748079</id>
	<title>Re:Silver lining</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you must be woefully ignorant of how it really works. As a patient you will only be subjected (well in a normal health regime, which the US is not) to the minimum number of exposures that can treat you. CT is dangerous, in fact so dangerous that most physicians are painfully aware of the trade-off between the enormous exposer of a set of CT and a normal 2d x-ray.</p><p>This is partly why radio/nuclear-medicine is a specialty in it's own right and the fact why you have to employ medical physisists to be allowed to do radiological examinations. Radio-technicians (or radiographers) have to be present and account for the amount of radiation and make sure that the health of both patient and staff alike is accounted for.</p><p>Your reply is utter bullshit from the first word until the last word.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you must be woefully ignorant of how it really works .
As a patient you will only be subjected ( well in a normal health regime , which the US is not ) to the minimum number of exposures that can treat you .
CT is dangerous , in fact so dangerous that most physicians are painfully aware of the trade-off between the enormous exposer of a set of CT and a normal 2d x-ray.This is partly why radio/nuclear-medicine is a specialty in it 's own right and the fact why you have to employ medical physisists to be allowed to do radiological examinations .
Radio-technicians ( or radiographers ) have to be present and account for the amount of radiation and make sure that the health of both patient and staff alike is accounted for.Your reply is utter bullshit from the first word until the last word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you must be woefully ignorant of how it really works.
As a patient you will only be subjected (well in a normal health regime, which the US is not) to the minimum number of exposures that can treat you.
CT is dangerous, in fact so dangerous that most physicians are painfully aware of the trade-off between the enormous exposer of a set of CT and a normal 2d x-ray.This is partly why radio/nuclear-medicine is a specialty in it's own right and the fact why you have to employ medical physisists to be allowed to do radiological examinations.
Radio-technicians (or radiographers) have to be present and account for the amount of radiation and make sure that the health of both patient and staff alike is accounted for.Your reply is utter bullshit from the first word until the last word.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754079</id>
	<title>Re:Some quantitative perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255637280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are essentially on the right lines but have failed to take into account an important factor which is to radiobiologically weight the dose based on the radiosenstivity of the organs. It is no surprise the shoe device did not cause problems, feet (extremities in general) are extremely insensitive to radiation in comparison with, say, the soft tissue organs in the abdomen, that is why when you talk about "dose" you need to understand the difference between energy deposited in a medium and the effective dose which is a concept used in radiation protection to do exactly the weighting that allows you to account for where the radiation is hitting, and the biology of the cells in that region. basically that means a CT overdose on a thorax or abdomen protocol is likely to result in a much higher risk of problems than the same "dose" in terms of energy transferred, to the feet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are essentially on the right lines but have failed to take into account an important factor which is to radiobiologically weight the dose based on the radiosenstivity of the organs .
It is no surprise the shoe device did not cause problems , feet ( extremities in general ) are extremely insensitive to radiation in comparison with , say , the soft tissue organs in the abdomen , that is why when you talk about " dose " you need to understand the difference between energy deposited in a medium and the effective dose which is a concept used in radiation protection to do exactly the weighting that allows you to account for where the radiation is hitting , and the biology of the cells in that region .
basically that means a CT overdose on a thorax or abdomen protocol is likely to result in a much higher risk of problems than the same " dose " in terms of energy transferred , to the feet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are essentially on the right lines but have failed to take into account an important factor which is to radiobiologically weight the dose based on the radiosenstivity of the organs.
It is no surprise the shoe device did not cause problems, feet (extremities in general) are extremely insensitive to radiation in comparison with, say, the soft tissue organs in the abdomen, that is why when you talk about "dose" you need to understand the difference between energy deposited in a medium and the effective dose which is a concept used in radiation protection to do exactly the weighting that allows you to account for where the radiation is hitting, and the biology of the cells in that region.
basically that means a CT overdose on a thorax or abdomen protocol is likely to result in a much higher risk of problems than the same "dose" in terms of energy transferred, to the feet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747625</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow. As someone who works in the medical industry, I can tell you that this isn't funny (despite the moderation). The amount of paperwork typically involved due to FDA regulations just to prove you've been trained on (let alone use daily) the machine makes TFM look like a leaflet. Forget about the amount of paperwork involved just to prove to the FDA that the machine is reasonably safe and the additional paperwork to prove that the specific machine is okay to send the customer.</p><p>The fact of the matter is, the FDA does everything they can to make sure medical devices are reasonably safe and to avoid the hell that is having your company under FDA control, companies make damn sure employees are following SOPPs. However, things still get missed, software has bugs and people are going to miss-communicate and end up with configurations that shouldn't be in place.</p><p>Some people argue that the machine shouldn't be able to put out this much radiation, but let's think about it this way: If you ask an electrician to do some re-wiring in your house (the person configuring the xray machine) and you don't explain clearly that your electric oven should get 220v (the misconfiguration), do you really think your microwave oven is still going to be safe?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
As someone who works in the medical industry , I can tell you that this is n't funny ( despite the moderation ) .
The amount of paperwork typically involved due to FDA regulations just to prove you 've been trained on ( let alone use daily ) the machine makes TFM look like a leaflet .
Forget about the amount of paperwork involved just to prove to the FDA that the machine is reasonably safe and the additional paperwork to prove that the specific machine is okay to send the customer.The fact of the matter is , the FDA does everything they can to make sure medical devices are reasonably safe and to avoid the hell that is having your company under FDA control , companies make damn sure employees are following SOPPs .
However , things still get missed , software has bugs and people are going to miss-communicate and end up with configurations that should n't be in place.Some people argue that the machine should n't be able to put out this much radiation , but let 's think about it this way : If you ask an electrician to do some re-wiring in your house ( the person configuring the xray machine ) and you do n't explain clearly that your electric oven should get 220v ( the misconfiguration ) , do you really think your microwave oven is still going to be safe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
As someone who works in the medical industry, I can tell you that this isn't funny (despite the moderation).
The amount of paperwork typically involved due to FDA regulations just to prove you've been trained on (let alone use daily) the machine makes TFM look like a leaflet.
Forget about the amount of paperwork involved just to prove to the FDA that the machine is reasonably safe and the additional paperwork to prove that the specific machine is okay to send the customer.The fact of the matter is, the FDA does everything they can to make sure medical devices are reasonably safe and to avoid the hell that is having your company under FDA control, companies make damn sure employees are following SOPPs.
However, things still get missed, software has bugs and people are going to miss-communicate and end up with configurations that shouldn't be in place.Some people argue that the machine shouldn't be able to put out this much radiation, but let's think about it this way: If you ask an electrician to do some re-wiring in your house (the person configuring the xray machine) and you don't explain clearly that your electric oven should get 220v (the misconfiguration), do you really think your microwave oven is still going to be safe?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746731</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't an "X-ray Pancake Geiger Tube" measure x-rays? How about just having one in the field of the machine running all the time. Good old analog hardware to confirm your digital settings.</p><p>Kind of like how people who work in nuclear power plants understand that just because you're getting no errors.... it doesn't mean that everything is ok.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't an " X-ray Pancake Geiger Tube " measure x-rays ?
How about just having one in the field of the machine running all the time .
Good old analog hardware to confirm your digital settings.Kind of like how people who work in nuclear power plants understand that just because you 're getting no errors.... it does n't mean that everything is ok .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't an "X-ray Pancake Geiger Tube" measure x-rays?
How about just having one in the field of the machine running all the time.
Good old analog hardware to confirm your digital settings.Kind of like how people who work in nuclear power plants understand that just because you're getting no errors.... it doesn't mean that everything is ok.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749069</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255553640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A dose metric is displayed very prominently on the screen.  Most folks outside of the medical physics community don't have much idea of what it means (my apologies to the handful of radiologists and technologists that I know are familiar with the CTDI).  The reading from a dosimeter would probably be as effective, with the exception that the artifacts caused by the dosimeter would most likely render the images undiagnostic and the scan would need to be repeated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A dose metric is displayed very prominently on the screen .
Most folks outside of the medical physics community do n't have much idea of what it means ( my apologies to the handful of radiologists and technologists that I know are familiar with the CTDI ) .
The reading from a dosimeter would probably be as effective , with the exception that the artifacts caused by the dosimeter would most likely render the images undiagnostic and the scan would need to be repeated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A dose metric is displayed very prominently on the screen.
Most folks outside of the medical physics community don't have much idea of what it means (my apologies to the handful of radiologists and technologists that I know are familiar with the CTDI).
The reading from a dosimeter would probably be as effective, with the exception that the artifacts caused by the dosimeter would most likely render the images undiagnostic and the scan would need to be repeated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746587</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>smitty777</author>
	<datestamp>1255542900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't disagree more. Unfortunately, enforcing training and reading manuals would probably have little effect. In my 10+ years doing usability for missile systems, you have to build in the mechanisms to keep the users from doing bad things. Even if you force the user to read the *entire manual* before each use, people still have bad days, hangovers, fights with significant others.  It has to be designed in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't disagree more .
Unfortunately , enforcing training and reading manuals would probably have little effect .
In my 10 + years doing usability for missile systems , you have to build in the mechanisms to keep the users from doing bad things .
Even if you force the user to read the * entire manual * before each use , people still have bad days , hangovers , fights with significant others .
It has to be designed in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't disagree more.
Unfortunately, enforcing training and reading manuals would probably have little effect.
In my 10+ years doing usability for missile systems, you have to build in the mechanisms to keep the users from doing bad things.
Even if you force the user to read the *entire manual* before each use, people still have bad days, hangovers, fights with significant others.
It has to be designed in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748167</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A CT perfusion scan is quite a bit different from a standard CT.  For a perfusion scan the table is not incremented during the acquisition. A small section of the patient's head is imaged repeatedly to track the infusion of contrast media. The hair loss was likely a thin "ring" around the head.  With a standard CT the table moves as the x-ray tube is rotated around the patient such that any given surface won't be irradiated twice (not strictly true--there can be a little overlap or also gaps, as set by the operator).  Loosely speaking, a perfusion scan consisting of, say 40 runs, is similar to 40 separate standard CT scans with regards to the skin dose over the thin section imaged for the perfusion scan (although the dose-per-slice for a perfusion acquisition is usually set to be much less than that used for a standard scan, hence the "loosely speaking"). With that in mind, you can imagine that the skin dose can be relatively high for these procedures (which are not very common). Incidentally, since the irradiated area is small (typically a few cm), the total effective dose is not outrageous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A CT perfusion scan is quite a bit different from a standard CT. For a perfusion scan the table is not incremented during the acquisition .
A small section of the patient 's head is imaged repeatedly to track the infusion of contrast media .
The hair loss was likely a thin " ring " around the head .
With a standard CT the table moves as the x-ray tube is rotated around the patient such that any given surface wo n't be irradiated twice ( not strictly true--there can be a little overlap or also gaps , as set by the operator ) .
Loosely speaking , a perfusion scan consisting of , say 40 runs , is similar to 40 separate standard CT scans with regards to the skin dose over the thin section imaged for the perfusion scan ( although the dose-per-slice for a perfusion acquisition is usually set to be much less than that used for a standard scan , hence the " loosely speaking " ) .
With that in mind , you can imagine that the skin dose can be relatively high for these procedures ( which are not very common ) .
Incidentally , since the irradiated area is small ( typically a few cm ) , the total effective dose is not outrageous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A CT perfusion scan is quite a bit different from a standard CT.  For a perfusion scan the table is not incremented during the acquisition.
A small section of the patient's head is imaged repeatedly to track the infusion of contrast media.
The hair loss was likely a thin "ring" around the head.
With a standard CT the table moves as the x-ray tube is rotated around the patient such that any given surface won't be irradiated twice (not strictly true--there can be a little overlap or also gaps, as set by the operator).
Loosely speaking, a perfusion scan consisting of, say 40 runs, is similar to 40 separate standard CT scans with regards to the skin dose over the thin section imaged for the perfusion scan (although the dose-per-slice for a perfusion acquisition is usually set to be much less than that used for a standard scan, hence the "loosely speaking").
With that in mind, you can imagine that the skin dose can be relatively high for these procedures (which are not very common).
Incidentally, since the irradiated area is small (typically a few cm), the total effective dose is not outrageous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752471</id>
	<title>Re:Some quantitative perspective</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This quantitative perspective appears to ignore the quantitative information provided in the FDA link from the summary.  The FDA link states that the  maximum dose for this protocol is supposed to be 0.5 Gy to the head which is 50 R and essentially 50 rem.  The actual dose was 300 to 400 rem, significantly higher than the typical Therac-25 dose you quote.</p><p>Further you do not discuss tissue weighting in your comparison of doses to the feet and head.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This quantitative perspective appears to ignore the quantitative information provided in the FDA link from the summary .
The FDA link states that the maximum dose for this protocol is supposed to be 0.5 Gy to the head which is 50 R and essentially 50 rem .
The actual dose was 300 to 400 rem , significantly higher than the typical Therac-25 dose you quote.Further you do not discuss tissue weighting in your comparison of doses to the feet and head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This quantitative perspective appears to ignore the quantitative information provided in the FDA link from the summary.
The FDA link states that the  maximum dose for this protocol is supposed to be 0.5 Gy to the head which is 50 R and essentially 50 rem.
The actual dose was 300 to 400 rem, significantly higher than the typical Therac-25 dose you quote.Further you do not discuss tissue weighting in your comparison of doses to the feet and head.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746891</id>
	<title>Failsafe anyone?</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1255544340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are very strict regulations on what radiation is acceptable. Why did the not add a failsafe or critical warning, something like a big red blinking message "What you are gonna do is probably stupid" or so?! Just to give the therapist a hint that something is wrong. I mean, implementing this kind of failsafe should not pose that much of a problem, would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very strict regulations on what radiation is acceptable .
Why did the not add a failsafe or critical warning , something like a big red blinking message " What you are gon na do is probably stupid " or so ? !
Just to give the therapist a hint that something is wrong .
I mean , implementing this kind of failsafe should not pose that much of a problem , would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very strict regulations on what radiation is acceptable.
Why did the not add a failsafe or critical warning, something like a big red blinking message "What you are gonna do is probably stupid" or so?!
Just to give the therapist a hint that something is wrong.
I mean, implementing this kind of failsafe should not pose that much of a problem, would it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747509</id>
	<title>Repo Man</title>
	<author>r\_benchley</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Ra-di-a-tion. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ra-di-a-tion .
Yes , indeed .
You hear the most outrageous lies about it .
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it 's bad for you .
Pernicious nonsense .
Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year .
They ought to have them , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ra-di-a-tion.
Yes, indeed.
You hear the most outrageous lies about it.
Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you.
Pernicious nonsense.
Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year.
They ought to have them, too.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750295</id>
	<title>Nothing a little Rad Away can't take care of</title>
	<author>dosun88888</author>
	<datestamp>1255516260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And in the future, I suggest taking some Rad-X before going to the hospital.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And in the future , I suggest taking some Rad-X before going to the hospital .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And in the future, I suggest taking some Rad-X before going to the hospital.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748015</id>
	<title>Re:Put a dosimeter in there with the patient</title>
	<author>wren337</author>
	<datestamp>1255549200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at a minimum, test any new setting on a dosimeter to verify the exposure level.  I mean that is just idiotic that they would program in a new dosage setting and not have "verify dosage with dosimeter" on the checklist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at a minimum , test any new setting on a dosimeter to verify the exposure level .
I mean that is just idiotic that they would program in a new dosage setting and not have " verify dosage with dosimeter " on the checklist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at a minimum, test any new setting on a dosimeter to verify the exposure level.
I mean that is just idiotic that they would program in a new dosage setting and not have "verify dosage with dosimeter" on the checklist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746853</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749867</id>
	<title>Engineers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why we need Software Engineers and not Comp Sci students</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why we need Software Engineers and not Comp Sci students</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why we need Software Engineers and not Comp Sci students</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746847</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a user of GE machines I would have to say they are pretty well locked down. It's hard to change anything. That may sound good, but in practice it means if you *do* want to change something then you need to do some pretty nasty workarounds. E.g. you have to edit a text file on the scanner so that it does what you want it to do, however as far as the scanner software is concerned it is still running the original protocol.</p><p>I only hope GE don't decide they need to lock down the scanners even further. For "confident" users (see TFA) who want/need to try out different protocols it will only mean more dangerous hacking of the scanner settings. Confident users with NIH research grants should take note.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a user of GE machines I would have to say they are pretty well locked down .
It 's hard to change anything .
That may sound good , but in practice it means if you * do * want to change something then you need to do some pretty nasty workarounds .
E.g. you have to edit a text file on the scanner so that it does what you want it to do , however as far as the scanner software is concerned it is still running the original protocol.I only hope GE do n't decide they need to lock down the scanners even further .
For " confident " users ( see TFA ) who want/need to try out different protocols it will only mean more dangerous hacking of the scanner settings .
Confident users with NIH research grants should take note .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a user of GE machines I would have to say they are pretty well locked down.
It's hard to change anything.
That may sound good, but in practice it means if you *do* want to change something then you need to do some pretty nasty workarounds.
E.g. you have to edit a text file on the scanner so that it does what you want it to do, however as far as the scanner software is concerned it is still running the original protocol.I only hope GE don't decide they need to lock down the scanners even further.
For "confident" users (see TFA) who want/need to try out different protocols it will only mean more dangerous hacking of the scanner settings.
Confident users with NIH research grants should take note.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746923</id>
	<title>Set Phasers on Stun</title>
	<author>Jeff Satterley</author>
	<datestamp>1255544520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Reminds me of my Human Factors class, we read the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Set-Phasers-Stun-Design-Technology/dp/0963617885/ref=sr\_1\_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1255540866&amp;sr=8-1" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">Set Phasers on Stun</a> [amazon.com], which included horror stories about human design disasters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of my Human Factors class , we read the book Set Phasers on Stun [ amazon.com ] , which included horror stories about human design disasters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of my Human Factors class, we read the book Set Phasers on Stun [amazon.com], which included horror stories about human design disasters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751449</id>
	<title>Re:Medical Staff were a big part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255523940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25...</p></div><p>"Usability issues"?</p><p>The Therac-25 software was a complex mess of parallel threads communicating via a crude system of shared variables - where a boatload of different race conditions could cause (lethal) radiation doses thousands of times greater than specified by the operator.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25... " Usability issues " ? The Therac-25 software was a complex mess of parallel threads communicating via a crude system of shared variables - where a boatload of different race conditions could cause ( lethal ) radiation doses thousands of times greater than specified by the operator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25..."Usability issues"?The Therac-25 software was a complex mess of parallel threads communicating via a crude system of shared variables - where a boatload of different race conditions could cause (lethal) radiation doses thousands of times greater than specified by the operator.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751693</id>
	<title>Re:Some quantitative perspective</title>
	<author>adamdeprince</author>
	<datestamp>1255526040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expected dose for their treatment was 50 rads, and they received 300-400.  <a href="http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm" title="fda.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm</a> [fda.gov].

Trying to downplay their dose by comparing it to the therac-25 is a little bit like comparing virtue among whores.   They were burned by their dose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expected dose for their treatment was 50 rads , and they received 300-400. http : //www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm [ fda.gov ] .
Trying to downplay their dose by comparing it to the therac-25 is a little bit like comparing virtue among whores .
They were burned by their dose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expected dose for their treatment was 50 rads, and they received 300-400.  http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm185898.htm [fda.gov].
Trying to downplay their dose by comparing it to the therac-25 is a little bit like comparing virtue among whores.
They were burned by their dose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747501</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Make something foolproof, and they'll invent a better fool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Make something foolproof , and they 'll invent a better fool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make something foolproof, and they'll invent a better fool</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747081</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>hattig</author>
	<datestamp>1255545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the article, you would have seen that this type of scan requires a higher dose of radiation, as it is picking up the iodine in the bloodstream.</p><p>On the upside, they would have got some really good images.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the article , you would have seen that this type of scan requires a higher dose of radiation , as it is picking up the iodine in the bloodstream.On the upside , they would have got some really good images .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the article, you would have seen that this type of scan requires a higher dose of radiation, as it is picking up the iodine in the bloodstream.On the upside, they would have got some really good images.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748811</id>
	<title>Whatever happened ...</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1255552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... to all those gauges on 1950's Sci-Fi movies that had the clearly marked red 'Danger' zone?
</p><p>Consider human factors. Just punching in (or glancing at) a number doesn't convey any sense of magnitude. I mean, who knew turning my guitar amp up to eleven would damage my hearing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... to all those gauges on 1950 's Sci-Fi movies that had the clearly marked red 'Danger ' zone ?
Consider human factors .
Just punching in ( or glancing at ) a number does n't convey any sense of magnitude .
I mean , who knew turning my guitar amp up to eleven would damage my hearing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... to all those gauges on 1950's Sci-Fi movies that had the clearly marked red 'Danger' zone?
Consider human factors.
Just punching in (or glancing at) a number doesn't convey any sense of magnitude.
I mean, who knew turning my guitar amp up to eleven would damage my hearing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749277</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>epine</author>
	<datestamp>1255511520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when I first began making heavy use of assert statements.  I was using an early release of the Walter Bright's Zortech C++ compiler (circa 1989).  I was reading Plaugher and Meyer's Eiffel book.  I thought some of the stuff in the Eiffel book was a bit cracked, but I took to programming by contract like a fish to water.</p><p>This was early days, and there was a lot of opposition to the use of assert() statements among the troglodytes.  The main objections were: it slows the program down, it uses too much code space (a more grievous offence when you are programming in 640kB), and, duh, the assert() statement might stop the program from continuing to run--in front of a customer, if you leave the assert() statement active in your production build.</p><p>The space problem was the worst of the three (how times change), so our production build had only a small percentage of our debug build.  Our debug build often required a DOS extender to run at all.  We used programming by contract extensively.</p><p>The end result of having all those assert statement?  We had very few bugs.  In the two or three cases where a customer had an assert statement go off, we had a patch out within days.  We had one very upset customer who experienced assert() failures on an hourly basis.  It didn't take us long to determine that this customer had a faulty memory subsystem.  This customer was adamant that all his other software ran fine (he thought it did) and that only our application failed.  In was one of those cases where we became the bearers of bad news.  At some point, memory cache bit rot was going to melt his file system.  Did he appreciate the early warning?  Not so much.</p><p>The upshot is that I've been immune to a certain kind of nonsense about software reliability for a good twenty years now.</p><p>I suspect GE considers it a feature, not a bug, that your average radiologists is afraid to tweak the settings on the ionizing ray gun of deep cranial insight.  I have a brother in law who practices radiology (reading the x-rays, not operating the machine).  Your average radiologist is not average.  He does the Navy Seals training program as a hobby.  His radiology degree nearly killed him.  For the first year, radiology is like trying to discover ET by staring at the white noise on your TV set after analog broadcasting has been discontinued.  I suspect he could work through a book of Sudoku puzzles with every second page glued together.</p><p>In a design inspired by programming by contract, the final screen would be a dose assessment screen.  As programmed, the machine will emit dose X.  This is 8x the safety threshold configured for this procedure.</p><p> <tt>[Scorch patient now]       [Think again]</tt> </p><p>If the exact position of the patient in the machine matters, then this can be entered into the machine, it can render a model which the operator can compare to the actual situation.  This is not rocket science.  You just have to want to do it.</p><p>The question at the end of the day is this: does GE want to?  Or have they <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster\_shots/2009/10/obesity-healthy-weight-commitment-foundation.html" title="latimes.com">eaten the Oreo?</a> [latimes.com] </p><p>But then, it's not like Unix programmers are any smarter.  I can think of very few applications, once I'm done editing the configuration files, will give me a summary screen of the directories which it requires for read or write or read/write operation in order to run correctly.  I have to use strace on a regular basis to figure out why a configuration file doesn't get read (or gets read and later clobbered by something else).</p><p>Like what's the argument these days for that?  Not enough disk space?  Program would be too large?  It makes my brain hurt?</p><p>Even C++ shot itself in the foot.  Not because it had the wrong agenda, though many can't get past this (I can still hear Meyer's scream echoing from the 1980s).  No, because they made function call resolution complicated involving inputs from dozens or (potentially) hundreds of places, and they couldn't b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when I first began making heavy use of assert statements .
I was using an early release of the Walter Bright 's Zortech C + + compiler ( circa 1989 ) .
I was reading Plaugher and Meyer 's Eiffel book .
I thought some of the stuff in the Eiffel book was a bit cracked , but I took to programming by contract like a fish to water.This was early days , and there was a lot of opposition to the use of assert ( ) statements among the troglodytes .
The main objections were : it slows the program down , it uses too much code space ( a more grievous offence when you are programming in 640kB ) , and , duh , the assert ( ) statement might stop the program from continuing to run--in front of a customer , if you leave the assert ( ) statement active in your production build.The space problem was the worst of the three ( how times change ) , so our production build had only a small percentage of our debug build .
Our debug build often required a DOS extender to run at all .
We used programming by contract extensively.The end result of having all those assert statement ?
We had very few bugs .
In the two or three cases where a customer had an assert statement go off , we had a patch out within days .
We had one very upset customer who experienced assert ( ) failures on an hourly basis .
It did n't take us long to determine that this customer had a faulty memory subsystem .
This customer was adamant that all his other software ran fine ( he thought it did ) and that only our application failed .
In was one of those cases where we became the bearers of bad news .
At some point , memory cache bit rot was going to melt his file system .
Did he appreciate the early warning ?
Not so much.The upshot is that I 've been immune to a certain kind of nonsense about software reliability for a good twenty years now.I suspect GE considers it a feature , not a bug , that your average radiologists is afraid to tweak the settings on the ionizing ray gun of deep cranial insight .
I have a brother in law who practices radiology ( reading the x-rays , not operating the machine ) .
Your average radiologist is not average .
He does the Navy Seals training program as a hobby .
His radiology degree nearly killed him .
For the first year , radiology is like trying to discover ET by staring at the white noise on your TV set after analog broadcasting has been discontinued .
I suspect he could work through a book of Sudoku puzzles with every second page glued together.In a design inspired by programming by contract , the final screen would be a dose assessment screen .
As programmed , the machine will emit dose X. This is 8x the safety threshold configured for this procedure .
[ Scorch patient now ] [ Think again ] If the exact position of the patient in the machine matters , then this can be entered into the machine , it can render a model which the operator can compare to the actual situation .
This is not rocket science .
You just have to want to do it.The question at the end of the day is this : does GE want to ?
Or have they eaten the Oreo ?
[ latimes.com ] But then , it 's not like Unix programmers are any smarter .
I can think of very few applications , once I 'm done editing the configuration files , will give me a summary screen of the directories which it requires for read or write or read/write operation in order to run correctly .
I have to use strace on a regular basis to figure out why a configuration file does n't get read ( or gets read and later clobbered by something else ) .Like what 's the argument these days for that ?
Not enough disk space ?
Program would be too large ?
It makes my brain hurt ? Even C + + shot itself in the foot .
Not because it had the wrong agenda , though many ca n't get past this ( I can still hear Meyer 's scream echoing from the 1980s ) .
No , because they made function call resolution complicated involving inputs from dozens or ( potentially ) hundreds of places , and they could n't b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when I first began making heavy use of assert statements.
I was using an early release of the Walter Bright's Zortech C++ compiler (circa 1989).
I was reading Plaugher and Meyer's Eiffel book.
I thought some of the stuff in the Eiffel book was a bit cracked, but I took to programming by contract like a fish to water.This was early days, and there was a lot of opposition to the use of assert() statements among the troglodytes.
The main objections were: it slows the program down, it uses too much code space (a more grievous offence when you are programming in 640kB), and, duh, the assert() statement might stop the program from continuing to run--in front of a customer, if you leave the assert() statement active in your production build.The space problem was the worst of the three (how times change), so our production build had only a small percentage of our debug build.
Our debug build often required a DOS extender to run at all.
We used programming by contract extensively.The end result of having all those assert statement?
We had very few bugs.
In the two or three cases where a customer had an assert statement go off, we had a patch out within days.
We had one very upset customer who experienced assert() failures on an hourly basis.
It didn't take us long to determine that this customer had a faulty memory subsystem.
This customer was adamant that all his other software ran fine (he thought it did) and that only our application failed.
In was one of those cases where we became the bearers of bad news.
At some point, memory cache bit rot was going to melt his file system.
Did he appreciate the early warning?
Not so much.The upshot is that I've been immune to a certain kind of nonsense about software reliability for a good twenty years now.I suspect GE considers it a feature, not a bug, that your average radiologists is afraid to tweak the settings on the ionizing ray gun of deep cranial insight.
I have a brother in law who practices radiology (reading the x-rays, not operating the machine).
Your average radiologist is not average.
He does the Navy Seals training program as a hobby.
His radiology degree nearly killed him.
For the first year, radiology is like trying to discover ET by staring at the white noise on your TV set after analog broadcasting has been discontinued.
I suspect he could work through a book of Sudoku puzzles with every second page glued together.In a design inspired by programming by contract, the final screen would be a dose assessment screen.
As programmed, the machine will emit dose X.  This is 8x the safety threshold configured for this procedure.
[Scorch patient now]       [Think again] If the exact position of the patient in the machine matters, then this can be entered into the machine, it can render a model which the operator can compare to the actual situation.
This is not rocket science.
You just have to want to do it.The question at the end of the day is this: does GE want to?
Or have they eaten the Oreo?
[latimes.com] But then, it's not like Unix programmers are any smarter.
I can think of very few applications, once I'm done editing the configuration files, will give me a summary screen of the directories which it requires for read or write or read/write operation in order to run correctly.
I have to use strace on a regular basis to figure out why a configuration file doesn't get read (or gets read and later clobbered by something else).Like what's the argument these days for that?
Not enough disk space?
Program would be too large?
It makes my brain hurt?Even C++ shot itself in the foot.
Not because it had the wrong agenda, though many can't get past this (I can still hear Meyer's scream echoing from the 1980s).
No, because they made function call resolution complicated involving inputs from dozens or (potentially) hundreds of places, and they couldn't b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747091</id>
	<title>Oh great</title>
	<author>Tony Hoyle</author>
	<datestamp>1255545240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now there are 206 hulks running around.</p><p>Just don't make them angry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now there are 206 hulks running around.Just do n't make them angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now there are 206 hulks running around.Just don't make them angry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749549</id>
	<title>Re:Medical Staff were a big part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing that struck me from that story (and is appropriate for Slashdot) is from a meeting between Therac-25 users and the manufacturer, after several deaths had occurred from two separate software bugs.  The users asked if the manufacturer would provide the source code for the machine's software, so they could look at it themselves.  The manufacturer said no.</p><p>Given that lives are at stake, this seems like an obvious thing for the FDA to do - demand that all medical devices be open-source.  Even if operators of the devices don't actually trawl through the code themselves (at least, until an accident has occurred), the knowledge that they *might* should motivate manufacturers to be a bit less sloppy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing that struck me from that story ( and is appropriate for Slashdot ) is from a meeting between Therac-25 users and the manufacturer , after several deaths had occurred from two separate software bugs .
The users asked if the manufacturer would provide the source code for the machine 's software , so they could look at it themselves .
The manufacturer said no.Given that lives are at stake , this seems like an obvious thing for the FDA to do - demand that all medical devices be open-source .
Even if operators of the devices do n't actually trawl through the code themselves ( at least , until an accident has occurred ) , the knowledge that they * might * should motivate manufacturers to be a bit less sloppy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing that struck me from that story (and is appropriate for Slashdot) is from a meeting between Therac-25 users and the manufacturer, after several deaths had occurred from two separate software bugs.
The users asked if the manufacturer would provide the source code for the machine's software, so they could look at it themselves.
The manufacturer said no.Given that lives are at stake, this seems like an obvious thing for the FDA to do - demand that all medical devices be open-source.
Even if operators of the devices don't actually trawl through the code themselves (at least, until an accident has occurred), the knowledge that they *might* should motivate manufacturers to be a bit less sloppy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749217</id>
	<title>My computer beeps and gives a warning</title>
	<author>ruewan</author>
	<datestamp>1255511220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My little ole computer beeps and gives a warning when the default settings are loaded. It says something about the default CMOS settings being loaded and requires me to press a key to continue. Why doesn't this machine do the same?</htmltext>
<tokenext>My little ole computer beeps and gives a warning when the default settings are loaded .
It says something about the default CMOS settings being loaded and requires me to press a key to continue .
Why does n't this machine do the same ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My little ole computer beeps and gives a warning when the default settings are loaded.
It says something about the default CMOS settings being loaded and requires me to press a key to continue.
Why doesn't this machine do the same?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747467</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1255546920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use.  It is the fault of specialization, which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry.  It's more than just "human oversight" or "machine failure," it's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines.

</p><p>A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency; we become technicians in various fields.  But most people, including medical people, get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings.  This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate.</p></div><p>But one of the things that we geeks <em>should</em> be doing is looking at equipment like this in its overall system context, which includes the operator and which includes the training the operator has received. That's mandatory in the Aviation industry pretty much worldwide (my field); I don't know what the situation is for medical equipment in the USA. No, we will never make such mistakes "uncommittable" -- perfect safety is a myth. But we should be considering possible failure modes, and the likelihood and consequences of those failure modes, to ensure that the risk is tolerable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use .
It is the fault of specialization , which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry .
It 's more than just " human oversight " or " machine failure , " it 's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines .
A certain segment of society--that 's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency ; we become technicians in various fields .
But most people , including medical people , get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings .
This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate.But one of the things that we geeks should be doing is looking at equipment like this in its overall system context , which includes the operator and which includes the training the operator has received .
That 's mandatory in the Aviation industry pretty much worldwide ( my field ) ; I do n't know what the situation is for medical equipment in the USA .
No , we will never make such mistakes " uncommittable " -- perfect safety is a myth .
But we should be considering possible failure modes , and the likelihood and consequences of those failure modes , to ensure that the risk is tolerable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use.
It is the fault of specialization, which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry.
It's more than just "human oversight" or "machine failure," it's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines.
A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency; we become technicians in various fields.
But most people, including medical people, get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings.
This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate.But one of the things that we geeks should be doing is looking at equipment like this in its overall system context, which includes the operator and which includes the training the operator has received.
That's mandatory in the Aviation industry pretty much worldwide (my field); I don't know what the situation is for medical equipment in the USA.
No, we will never make such mistakes "uncommittable" -- perfect safety is a myth.
But we should be considering possible failure modes, and the likelihood and consequences of those failure modes, to ensure that the risk is tolerable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747237</id>
	<title>Re:No, there will always be risk</title>
	<author>eleuthero</author>
	<datestamp>1255545840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How far does "acceptance" go? Being horrified at problems and seeking to address them seems like a proper response--humans are not just machines--emotional responses indicate acceptance on many levels, not just the intellectual. <br> <br>And while this may or may not apply to your particular comment (depending on your meaning), if we didn't work to remove unnecessary risk from the world, there would be no fire, no stick clubs, and we would all be living in trees trying to hide from tigers and lions--when they didn't just climb up right after us. Many would die before reaching child-bearing age and malnutrition would be constant. I happen to like a world where we try to improve the quality of life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How far does " acceptance " go ?
Being horrified at problems and seeking to address them seems like a proper response--humans are not just machines--emotional responses indicate acceptance on many levels , not just the intellectual .
And while this may or may not apply to your particular comment ( depending on your meaning ) , if we did n't work to remove unnecessary risk from the world , there would be no fire , no stick clubs , and we would all be living in trees trying to hide from tigers and lions--when they did n't just climb up right after us .
Many would die before reaching child-bearing age and malnutrition would be constant .
I happen to like a world where we try to improve the quality of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How far does "acceptance" go?
Being horrified at problems and seeking to address them seems like a proper response--humans are not just machines--emotional responses indicate acceptance on many levels, not just the intellectual.
And while this may or may not apply to your particular comment (depending on your meaning), if we didn't work to remove unnecessary risk from the world, there would be no fire, no stick clubs, and we would all be living in trees trying to hide from tigers and lions--when they didn't just climb up right after us.
Many would die before reaching child-bearing age and malnutrition would be constant.
I happen to like a world where we try to improve the quality of life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29753889</id>
	<title>have u heard about that.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>some researcher said N yrs b4........<br>"human should not be counted as a factor of any science".........<br>and many yrs later.......<br>some other researcher has proven this statement is wrong......<br>u c?<br>hahaha.......science proves right OR wrong........<br>but the proposition itself means nothing at the start........<br>but many guys were believing from the start.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>some researcher said N yrs b4........ " human should not be counted as a factor of any science " .........and many yrs later.......some other researcher has proven this statement is wrong......u c ? hahaha.......science proves right OR wrong........but the proposition itself means nothing at the start........but many guys were believing from the start.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>some researcher said N yrs b4........"human should not be counted as a factor of any science".........and many yrs later.......some other researcher has proven this statement is wrong......u c?hahaha.......science proves right OR wrong........but the proposition itself means nothing at the start........but many guys were believing from the start.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748007</id>
	<title>Dangerous != Fatal either...</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1255549140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On a CT scan, eight times the normal dose for one translates into a rather increased chance for cancer...  When you start losing hair, you might want to think about that sort of thing being more than a bit too high.  And 200 patients where roughly 80\% of them had that symptom...  Not good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On a CT scan , eight times the normal dose for one translates into a rather increased chance for cancer... When you start losing hair , you might want to think about that sort of thing being more than a bit too high .
And 200 patients where roughly 80 \ % of them had that symptom... Not good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On a CT scan, eight times the normal dose for one translates into a rather increased chance for cancer...  When you start losing hair, you might want to think about that sort of thing being more than a bit too high.
And 200 patients where roughly 80\% of them had that symptom...  Not good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748809</id>
	<title>Clippy to the rescue!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1255552500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"It looks like you are trying to give your patient a lethal dose of radiation. Would you like me to notify you malpractice attorneys?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" It looks like you are trying to give your patient a lethal dose of radiation .
Would you like me to notify you malpractice attorneys ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It looks like you are trying to give your patient a lethal dose of radiation.
Would you like me to notify you malpractice attorneys?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748317</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>turbidostato</author>
	<datestamp>1255550460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use."</p><p>It doesn't seem so by reading the article.  Damn, even the Slashdot version mentions the Therac-25 case, so it's obvious you didn't read the article but you didn't even read the editorial prior to shoot your answer.</p><p>Insightful? My ass.</p><p>"A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency"</p><p>In turn, it seems that this segment of society you mention -geeks, are the culprit in this case.</p><p>This seem to be a case of poor engineering by unsafe failing design.  The system locked on a dangerous state on a range of situations due to a certain (valid) procedure which indeed needed the higher radiation dose.  That's bad engineering -full stop.</p><p>"but most of us find other ways to cope."</p><p>One of those geeks you mentioned should design the thingie in such a way that in case of overlooking it resulted on *less* radition exposition than expected by default, not the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use .
" It does n't seem so by reading the article .
Damn , even the Slashdot version mentions the Therac-25 case , so it 's obvious you did n't read the article but you did n't even read the editorial prior to shoot your answer.Insightful ?
My ass .
" A certain segment of society--that 's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency " In turn , it seems that this segment of society you mention -geeks , are the culprit in this case.This seem to be a case of poor engineering by unsafe failing design .
The system locked on a dangerous state on a range of situations due to a certain ( valid ) procedure which indeed needed the higher radiation dose .
That 's bad engineering -full stop .
" but most of us find other ways to cope .
" One of those geeks you mentioned should design the thingie in such a way that in case of overlooking it resulted on * less * radition exposition than expected by default , not the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use.
"It doesn't seem so by reading the article.
Damn, even the Slashdot version mentions the Therac-25 case, so it's obvious you didn't read the article but you didn't even read the editorial prior to shoot your answer.Insightful?
My ass.
"A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency"In turn, it seems that this segment of society you mention -geeks, are the culprit in this case.This seem to be a case of poor engineering by unsafe failing design.
The system locked on a dangerous state on a range of situations due to a certain (valid) procedure which indeed needed the higher radiation dose.
That's bad engineering -full stop.
"but most of us find other ways to cope.
"One of those geeks you mentioned should design the thingie in such a way that in case of overlooking it resulted on *less* radition exposition than expected by default, not the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746927</id>
	<title>Hulk?</title>
	<author>HaaPoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255544580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So are these guys are going to turn gray and nobody should piss them off?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So are these guys are going to turn gray and nobody should piss them off ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So are these guys are going to turn gray and nobody should piss them off?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</id>
	<title>Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe next time they will test the damn thing before subjecting patients to it? It's a built in part of my job that I test/confirm a change after I make a change.. because often there's a likely hood of something unexpected or improperly explained that can cause an issue.</p><p>How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test?<br>(I realize that just a basic dosimeter might not be a sufficient measure.. but it would have been good to get a before/after.. and something like a 8-fold increase would have been easily detectable!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe next time they will test the damn thing before subjecting patients to it ?
It 's a built in part of my job that I test/confirm a change after I make a change.. because often there 's a likely hood of something unexpected or improperly explained that can cause an issue.How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test ?
( I realize that just a basic dosimeter might not be a sufficient measure.. but it would have been good to get a before/after.. and something like a 8-fold increase would have been easily detectable !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe next time they will test the damn thing before subjecting patients to it?
It's a built in part of my job that I test/confirm a change after I make a change.. because often there's a likely hood of something unexpected or improperly explained that can cause an issue.How hard would it have been to stick a dosimeter in the machine after the change and run it though a test?
(I realize that just a basic dosimeter might not be a sufficient measure.. but it would have been good to get a before/after.. and something like a 8-fold increase would have been easily detectable!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751539</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>mrmeval</author>
	<datestamp>1255524660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes if you can kill companies who kill people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes if you can kill companies who kill people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes if you can kill companies who kill people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29757249</id>
	<title>Re:HULK MAD!</title>
	<author>PalmKiller</author>
	<datestamp>1255621080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>His "real" first name was Dr. Bruce Banner in the comics, he went by David Banner on the TV version since the TV producers thought Bruce sounded gay (really not being a troll, they associated the name Bruce with homosexuality at the time).  David Brenner was one of the TV aliases he used.</htmltext>
<tokenext>His " real " first name was Dr. Bruce Banner in the comics , he went by David Banner on the TV version since the TV producers thought Bruce sounded gay ( really not being a troll , they associated the name Bruce with homosexuality at the time ) .
David Brenner was one of the TV aliases he used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His "real" first name was Dr. Bruce Banner in the comics, he went by David Banner on the TV version since the TV producers thought Bruce sounded gay (really not being a troll, they associated the name Bruce with homosexuality at the time).
David Brenner was one of the TV aliases he used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746763</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Demonantis</author>
	<datestamp>1255543680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"You have to be pretty confident to think you know more than the guys who designed the equipment."</p></div><p>I think it speaks volumes. I don't think they would RTFM even if you threatened them it would be a conflict of their personality.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" You have to be pretty confident to think you know more than the guys who designed the equipment .
" I think it speaks volumes .
I do n't think they would RTFM even if you threatened them it would be a conflict of their personality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You have to be pretty confident to think you know more than the guys who designed the equipment.
"I think it speaks volumes.
I don't think they would RTFM even if you threatened them it would be a conflict of their personality.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747241</id>
	<title>a rational question</title>
	<author>rs232</author>
	<datestamp>1255545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone here who posted on the subject, know what the fuck they are on about. And can we really believe the published reports<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone here who posted on the subject , know what the fuck they are on about .
And can we really believe the published reports . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone here who posted on the subject, know what the fuck they are on about.
And can we really believe the published reports ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746681</id>
	<title>"Unwilling to admit"?  Hardly.</title>
	<author>jeffb (2.718)</author>
	<datestamp>1255543380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think doctors, machine designers, and everyone else involved <i>are</i> aware of the increased radiation associated with CT scans.  But if you've got someone presenting with stroke symptoms, you're balancing "additional 1 in 10,000 lifetime risk of cancer" against "irreversible brain damage increasing in severity with each passing minute".  If <b>I'm</b> ever in that situation, I'd tell them "cook me as hard and fast as you like, and I'll deal with the side effects at my leisure."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think doctors , machine designers , and everyone else involved are aware of the increased radiation associated with CT scans .
But if you 've got someone presenting with stroke symptoms , you 're balancing " additional 1 in 10,000 lifetime risk of cancer " against " irreversible brain damage increasing in severity with each passing minute " .
If I 'm ever in that situation , I 'd tell them " cook me as hard and fast as you like , and I 'll deal with the side effects at my leisure .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think doctors, machine designers, and everyone else involved are aware of the increased radiation associated with CT scans.
But if you've got someone presenting with stroke symptoms, you're balancing "additional 1 in 10,000 lifetime risk of cancer" against "irreversible brain damage increasing in severity with each passing minute".
If I'm ever in that situation, I'd tell them "cook me as hard and fast as you like, and I'll deal with the side effects at my leisure.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747841</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>digitig</author>
	<datestamp>1255548480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Testing isn't enough. The Therac-25 system was tested, but that didn't catch the UI issues (only occurred when operators got very familiar with the system) or the race condition (too rare to occur in testing). A system that can cause serious harm needs serious analysis, not just testing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Testing is n't enough .
The Therac-25 system was tested , but that did n't catch the UI issues ( only occurred when operators got very familiar with the system ) or the race condition ( too rare to occur in testing ) .
A system that can cause serious harm needs serious analysis , not just testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Testing isn't enough.
The Therac-25 system was tested, but that didn't catch the UI issues (only occurred when operators got very familiar with the system) or the race condition (too rare to occur in testing).
A system that can cause serious harm needs serious analysis, not just testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746853</id>
	<title>Put a dosimeter in there with the patient</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For patients undergoing scans or treatments involving radiation, why not verify exposure with a 25 cent dosimeter?  You'd catch problems right away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For patients undergoing scans or treatments involving radiation , why not verify exposure with a 25 cent dosimeter ?
You 'd catch problems right away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For patients undergoing scans or treatments involving radiation, why not verify exposure with a 25 cent dosimeter?
You'd catch problems right away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</id>
	<title>Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>As long as people are involved in some way, no.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as people are involved in some way , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as people are involved in some way, no.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748035</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1255549320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a lot of regulatory oversight of these machines.  Even relatively benign devices like ultrasound have a lot of process to ensure safety, and the extremely deadly stuff like radiation therapy seems like 99\% process to 1\% engineering (and you thought those TPS cover sheets were annoying).  Many bugs, even simple GUI mistakes, can escalate throughout the company.  Which is sort of what you expect with potentially dangerous equipment.<br><br>But at the end of the day, you have to beware of the user.  You even have to design around the user, to ensure the user does not make a mistake.  Allowing the user to make a mistake can often be considered a bug.  Using radiation therapy machines is a constant stream of "are you sure?" messages.  I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons, both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation, and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.<br><br>This is absolutely one area where you don't want the end user taking control and changing the software or rewiring the machine.  You'll never see a GPL license come with these machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a lot of regulatory oversight of these machines .
Even relatively benign devices like ultrasound have a lot of process to ensure safety , and the extremely deadly stuff like radiation therapy seems like 99 \ % process to 1 \ % engineering ( and you thought those TPS cover sheets were annoying ) .
Many bugs , even simple GUI mistakes , can escalate throughout the company .
Which is sort of what you expect with potentially dangerous equipment.But at the end of the day , you have to beware of the user .
You even have to design around the user , to ensure the user does not make a mistake .
Allowing the user to make a mistake can often be considered a bug .
Using radiation therapy machines is a constant stream of " are you sure ?
" messages .
I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons , both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation , and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.This is absolutely one area where you do n't want the end user taking control and changing the software or rewiring the machine .
You 'll never see a GPL license come with these machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a lot of regulatory oversight of these machines.
Even relatively benign devices like ultrasound have a lot of process to ensure safety, and the extremely deadly stuff like radiation therapy seems like 99\% process to 1\% engineering (and you thought those TPS cover sheets were annoying).
Many bugs, even simple GUI mistakes, can escalate throughout the company.
Which is sort of what you expect with potentially dangerous equipment.But at the end of the day, you have to beware of the user.
You even have to design around the user, to ensure the user does not make a mistake.
Allowing the user to make a mistake can often be considered a bug.
Using radiation therapy machines is a constant stream of "are you sure?
" messages.
I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons, both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation, and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.This is absolutely one area where you don't want the end user taking control and changing the software or rewiring the machine.
You'll never see a GPL license come with these machines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747219</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1255545780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Then a simple input error while administering it,  causes an overdose...
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then a simple input error while administering it , causes an overdose.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Then a simple input error while administering it,  causes an overdose...
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746863</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>nomadic</author>
	<datestamp>1255544220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because this is slashdot, where it's NEVER the engineer's fault...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because this is slashdot , where it 's NEVER the engineer 's fault.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because this is slashdot, where it's NEVER the engineer's fault...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>antifoidulus</author>
	<datestamp>1255545000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The advantages of simplified training are not just beneficial on an economic scale.  While its unfortunate that this error killed people, think of how many more people would die if complex training was required to use these types of machines.  Ultimately, it would lead to fewer operators and thus less access to the machine, which ostensibly helps save lives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The advantages of simplified training are not just beneficial on an economic scale .
While its unfortunate that this error killed people , think of how many more people would die if complex training was required to use these types of machines .
Ultimately , it would lead to fewer operators and thus less access to the machine , which ostensibly helps save lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The advantages of simplified training are not just beneficial on an economic scale.
While its unfortunate that this error killed people, think of how many more people would die if complex training was required to use these types of machines.
Ultimately, it would lead to fewer operators and thus less access to the machine, which ostensibly helps save lives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746963</id>
	<title>Dev is behind schedule! Forget testing....</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1255544760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sound familiar to anybody? Hope you enjoy that next doctor visit, plane ride, etc.</p><p>Hey, I hear they want to make a smart grid! Any takers on reliability? Anybody?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sound familiar to anybody ?
Hope you enjoy that next doctor visit , plane ride , etc.Hey , I hear they want to make a smart grid !
Any takers on reliability ?
Anybody ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sound familiar to anybody?
Hope you enjoy that next doctor visit, plane ride, etc.Hey, I hear they want to make a smart grid!
Any takers on reliability?
Anybody?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29758443</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255626180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, human error will never go away, but improved UI's and interfaces can go a long way in reducing them.  The reason this mode was mistaken for something it was not must have been due to a clash of terminology... something that could have been avoided if the designers of the CT scanner software/firmware had consulted doctors who would be using the scanner before they started coding.</p><p>Also - there is such a thing as tool-tips... and this "human error" illustrates brilliantly why they should be incorporated (in some way) into just about every technical GUI out there... especially when there are human lives involved.  As a software developer, it may not be priority no. one to provide your user with a clean and understandable interface - but it better damn well at least make the short-list for your number one or you're not doing your job properly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , human error will never go away , but improved UI 's and interfaces can go a long way in reducing them .
The reason this mode was mistaken for something it was not must have been due to a clash of terminology... something that could have been avoided if the designers of the CT scanner software/firmware had consulted doctors who would be using the scanner before they started coding.Also - there is such a thing as tool-tips... and this " human error " illustrates brilliantly why they should be incorporated ( in some way ) into just about every technical GUI out there... especially when there are human lives involved .
As a software developer , it may not be priority no .
one to provide your user with a clean and understandable interface - but it better damn well at least make the short-list for your number one or you 're not doing your job properly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, human error will never go away, but improved UI's and interfaces can go a long way in reducing them.
The reason this mode was mistaken for something it was not must have been due to a clash of terminology... something that could have been avoided if the designers of the CT scanner software/firmware had consulted doctors who would be using the scanner before they started coding.Also - there is such a thing as tool-tips... and this "human error" illustrates brilliantly why they should be incorporated (in some way) into just about every technical GUI out there... especially when there are human lives involved.
As a software developer, it may not be priority no.
one to provide your user with a clean and understandable interface - but it better damn well at least make the short-list for your number one or you're not doing your job properly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746589</id>
	<title>I think they need in-line radiation sensors</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The best way to know what the equipment will emit is to test what the machine actually emits.</p><p>They need to have some sort of sensor in-line with the radiation stream to audit the hardware and software output and confirm the human configurations are in line with expectations.</p><p>I don't know the technicals and how they might impact the actual treatment, but these things are too important to rely on some expectation based on some model with nothing that is actually measured at the point of delivery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The best way to know what the equipment will emit is to test what the machine actually emits.They need to have some sort of sensor in-line with the radiation stream to audit the hardware and software output and confirm the human configurations are in line with expectations.I do n't know the technicals and how they might impact the actual treatment , but these things are too important to rely on some expectation based on some model with nothing that is actually measured at the point of delivery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The best way to know what the equipment will emit is to test what the machine actually emits.They need to have some sort of sensor in-line with the radiation stream to audit the hardware and software output and confirm the human configurations are in line with expectations.I don't know the technicals and how they might impact the actual treatment, but these things are too important to rely on some expectation based on some model with nothing that is actually measured at the point of delivery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748719</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1255552200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is probably exactly what the manufacturer or field service people would do.  But we're talking about the end user taking it on themselves to reconfigure the machine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is probably exactly what the manufacturer or field service people would do .
But we 're talking about the end user taking it on themselves to reconfigure the machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is probably exactly what the manufacturer or field service people would do.
But we're talking about the end user taking it on themselves to reconfigure the machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750209</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>cjonslashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1255515840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't agree that the fault was in insufficient training. A device such as this one should have been built to operate in an appliance-like manner. It should not have been possible to set the machine to a setting that was dangerous.</p><p>So many devices are not properly tested. We talk about the Therac-25: what about the Apple TV? I use a Mac and so I prefer Apple products over the commercial alternatives, but the Apple TV is one of the most poorly engineered devices I have ever used, and the problems are all in the software. It simply was not tested (it seems) to handle all of the many asynchronous conditions that occur during use. Ironically it is designed to be appliance-like. It doesn't even have an on-off switch, yet I have to unplug the thing to reset it every single time I use it. It clearly relies on procedural routines that test for this and that and if some condition is true it sets that state, only to have the condition turn false a moment later, but the thing cannot detect that and it gets stuck in undefined states and so it then can't access the Internet (because it thinks it is not available when it actually is) or it thinks your library has been deleted when it hasn't or it "forgets" your iTunes password until you reset the machine, and so on and so on. Whoever designed the software does not understand real-time programming and it clearly was not tested properly.</p><p>This is common within our industry. Programmers think procedurally. They check some variable and then go on to assume that the variable retains that value for the remainder of the current method, when in fact it might change if the variable can be set by another routine due to an asynchronous event such as user input or a change initiated by another part of the system.</p><p>Testing needs to be extensive and planned out, and it needs to consider all of the failure modes and events that might occur, including the unlikely ones, because in real use a one in a million event that causes a death does matter if the system is going to be used by the thousands across the globe. Anyone who does not properly test such a system should be liable for that death.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't agree that the fault was in insufficient training .
A device such as this one should have been built to operate in an appliance-like manner .
It should not have been possible to set the machine to a setting that was dangerous.So many devices are not properly tested .
We talk about the Therac-25 : what about the Apple TV ?
I use a Mac and so I prefer Apple products over the commercial alternatives , but the Apple TV is one of the most poorly engineered devices I have ever used , and the problems are all in the software .
It simply was not tested ( it seems ) to handle all of the many asynchronous conditions that occur during use .
Ironically it is designed to be appliance-like .
It does n't even have an on-off switch , yet I have to unplug the thing to reset it every single time I use it .
It clearly relies on procedural routines that test for this and that and if some condition is true it sets that state , only to have the condition turn false a moment later , but the thing can not detect that and it gets stuck in undefined states and so it then ca n't access the Internet ( because it thinks it is not available when it actually is ) or it thinks your library has been deleted when it has n't or it " forgets " your iTunes password until you reset the machine , and so on and so on .
Whoever designed the software does not understand real-time programming and it clearly was not tested properly.This is common within our industry .
Programmers think procedurally .
They check some variable and then go on to assume that the variable retains that value for the remainder of the current method , when in fact it might change if the variable can be set by another routine due to an asynchronous event such as user input or a change initiated by another part of the system.Testing needs to be extensive and planned out , and it needs to consider all of the failure modes and events that might occur , including the unlikely ones , because in real use a one in a million event that causes a death does matter if the system is going to be used by the thousands across the globe .
Anyone who does not properly test such a system should be liable for that death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't agree that the fault was in insufficient training.
A device such as this one should have been built to operate in an appliance-like manner.
It should not have been possible to set the machine to a setting that was dangerous.So many devices are not properly tested.
We talk about the Therac-25: what about the Apple TV?
I use a Mac and so I prefer Apple products over the commercial alternatives, but the Apple TV is one of the most poorly engineered devices I have ever used, and the problems are all in the software.
It simply was not tested (it seems) to handle all of the many asynchronous conditions that occur during use.
Ironically it is designed to be appliance-like.
It doesn't even have an on-off switch, yet I have to unplug the thing to reset it every single time I use it.
It clearly relies on procedural routines that test for this and that and if some condition is true it sets that state, only to have the condition turn false a moment later, but the thing cannot detect that and it gets stuck in undefined states and so it then can't access the Internet (because it thinks it is not available when it actually is) or it thinks your library has been deleted when it hasn't or it "forgets" your iTunes password until you reset the machine, and so on and so on.
Whoever designed the software does not understand real-time programming and it clearly was not tested properly.This is common within our industry.
Programmers think procedurally.
They check some variable and then go on to assume that the variable retains that value for the remainder of the current method, when in fact it might change if the variable can be set by another routine due to an asynchronous event such as user input or a change initiated by another part of the system.Testing needs to be extensive and planned out, and it needs to consider all of the failure modes and events that might occur, including the unlikely ones, because in real use a one in a million event that causes a death does matter if the system is going to be used by the thousands across the globe.
Anyone who does not properly test such a system should be liable for that death.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</id>
	<title>Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1255542600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The error went unnoticed for the next 18 months, until this August, when a stroke patient informed the hospital that he had begun losing his hair after a scan.</p></div><p>There's only a factor of 8 difference between a typical scan dose and one large enough to cause hair loss and skin damage? IIRC observable damage doesn't occur until the hundreds of mSv range. I'm pretty astonished that CT scans need such huge doses.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The error went unnoticed for the next 18 months , until this August , when a stroke patient informed the hospital that he had begun losing his hair after a scan.There 's only a factor of 8 difference between a typical scan dose and one large enough to cause hair loss and skin damage ?
IIRC observable damage does n't occur until the hundreds of mSv range .
I 'm pretty astonished that CT scans need such huge doses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The error went unnoticed for the next 18 months, until this August, when a stroke patient informed the hospital that he had begun losing his hair after a scan.There's only a factor of 8 difference between a typical scan dose and one large enough to cause hair loss and skin damage?
IIRC observable damage doesn't occur until the hundreds of mSv range.
I'm pretty astonished that CT scans need such huge doses.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</id>
	<title>It's About Automation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably modded insightful because we're all familiar with "human error," but it misses the point of the article (and is sort of misanthropic, too).

</p><p>This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use.  It is the fault of specialization, which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry.  It's more than just "human oversight" or "machine failure," it's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines.

</p><p>A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency; we become technicians in various fields.  But most people, including medical people, get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings.  This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate.

</p><p>The sad reality is that, so long as it doesn't kill <i>too many</i> people, any innovation that leads to greater economic efficiency will be accepted and embraced.  The obvious example is automobiles, which (even adjusting for factors like alcohol) kill a startlingly large number of people.  Those deaths are mourned, but ultimately absorbed by the human race as the cost of doing business.  This makes some people resent automation, resent technology, et cetera... but most of us find other ways to cope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably modded insightful because we 're all familiar with " human error , " but it misses the point of the article ( and is sort of misanthropic , too ) .
This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use .
It is the fault of specialization , which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry .
It 's more than just " human oversight " or " machine failure , " it 's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines .
A certain segment of society--that 's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency ; we become technicians in various fields .
But most people , including medical people , get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings .
This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate .
The sad reality is that , so long as it does n't kill too many people , any innovation that leads to greater economic efficiency will be accepted and embraced .
The obvious example is automobiles , which ( even adjusting for factors like alcohol ) kill a startlingly large number of people .
Those deaths are mourned , but ultimately absorbed by the human race as the cost of doing business .
This makes some people resent automation , resent technology , et cetera... but most of us find other ways to cope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably modded insightful because we're all familiar with "human error," but it misses the point of the article (and is sort of misanthropic, too).
This particular error is the kind that occurs when you simplify complex procedures in the interest of widespread use.
It is the fault of specialization, which we typically embrace because it allows us to leverage human labor into increasingly complex areas of inquiry.
It's more than just "human oversight" or "machine failure," it's the kind of problem that typically arises when people are trained to use machines without being trained to fully understand those machines.
A certain segment of society--that's mostly us geeks--strives against this tendency; we become technicians in various fields.
But most people, including medical people, get trained by vendors to use a particular piece of software or hardware without reference to its underlying principles or inner workings.
This is normal and usually beneficial for various reasons an economist could doubtless relate.
The sad reality is that, so long as it doesn't kill too many people, any innovation that leads to greater economic efficiency will be accepted and embraced.
The obvious example is automobiles, which (even adjusting for factors like alcohol) kill a startlingly large number of people.
Those deaths are mourned, but ultimately absorbed by the human race as the cost of doing business.
This makes some people resent automation, resent technology, et cetera... but most of us find other ways to cope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748681</id>
	<title>Re:HULK MAD!</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I think that might have been one of David Banner's many aliases on "The Incredible Hulk" TV show. He usually chose a last name beginning with "B" but kept the David first name of his name for his aliases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I think that might have been one of David Banner 's many aliases on " The Incredible Hulk " TV show .
He usually chose a last name beginning with " B " but kept the David first name of his name for his aliases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I think that might have been one of David Banner's many aliases on "The Incredible Hulk" TV show.
He usually chose a last name beginning with "B" but kept the David first name of his name for his aliases.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749383</id>
	<title>Re:Failsafe anyone?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in medical software</p><p>let me just tell you that doctor never ever make mistake unless 10 other doctors said so<br>at worst they make suboptimal decisions....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in medical softwarelet me just tell you that doctor never ever make mistake unless 10 other doctors said soat worst they make suboptimal decisions... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in medical softwarelet me just tell you that doctor never ever make mistake unless 10 other doctors said soat worst they make suboptimal decisions....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746539</id>
	<title>In short</title>
	<author>Cornwallis</author>
	<datestamp>1255542660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"</p></div><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable ?
" No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?
"No.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748941</id>
	<title>The mammal display</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255552980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Instead of just displaying the number, the machine should emit the cry of an animal that the dose of radiation is extremely harmful/unhealthy for.  It could probably show an image of the animal too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead of just displaying the number , the machine should emit the cry of an animal that the dose of radiation is extremely harmful/unhealthy for .
It could probably show an image of the animal too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead of just displaying the number, the machine should emit the cry of an animal that the dose of radiation is extremely harmful/unhealthy for.
It could probably show an image of the animal too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747929</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1255548900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels, and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan..."There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers," said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin, a professor of radiology at Stanford University. "The user becomes a little blind to these numbers."'</p></div><p>So I wonder if those other-place techs are in jail for lying about their qualifications and endangering lives, after knowingly putting themselves in a position that could endanger lives if not done correctly, even after being 'trained' to know better.</p><p>If not, I want the lawyer they had to be able to claim "I was just pushing buttons, I didn't know I had to look at the display" while I am running down people I dislike in my car.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels , and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan... " There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers , " said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin , a professor of radiology at Stanford University .
" The user becomes a little blind to these numbers .
" 'So I wonder if those other-place techs are in jail for lying about their qualifications and endangering lives , after knowingly putting themselves in a position that could endanger lives if not done correctly , even after being 'trained ' to know better.If not , I want the lawyer they had to be able to claim " I was just pushing buttons , I did n't know I had to look at the display " while I am running down people I dislike in my car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'CT technicians are trained to monitor dose levels, and some hospitals conduct checks before every scan..."There are other places where the techs might be operating more as button-pushers," said Dr. Geoffrey Rubin, a professor of radiology at Stanford University.
"The user becomes a little blind to these numbers.
"'So I wonder if those other-place techs are in jail for lying about their qualifications and endangering lives, after knowingly putting themselves in a position that could endanger lives if not done correctly, even after being 'trained' to know better.If not, I want the lawyer they had to be able to claim "I was just pushing buttons, I didn't know I had to look at the display" while I am running down people I dislike in my car.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748373</id>
	<title>Re:8 times intended != fatal</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1255550580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Right because just a few decades ago people didn't even <i>have</i> airbags in their cars. So what's the big deal if a couple of hundred people have their jaws broken when they bump a planter box at 6 MPH? It's not like they died or anything. Get some perspective!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right because just a few decades ago people did n't even have airbags in their cars .
So what 's the big deal if a couple of hundred people have their jaws broken when they bump a planter box at 6 MPH ?
It 's not like they died or anything .
Get some perspective !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right because just a few decades ago people didn't even have airbags in their cars.
So what's the big deal if a couple of hundred people have their jaws broken when they bump a planter box at 6 MPH?
It's not like they died or anything.
Get some perspective!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746925</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed - looks like the embedded software developer didn't follow tenet 1 of the soft dev. process, i.e. assume the user is an idiot.  It should always default to some "safe" value.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed - looks like the embedded software developer did n't follow tenet 1 of the soft dev .
process , i.e .
assume the user is an idiot .
It should always default to some " safe " value .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed - looks like the embedded software developer didn't follow tenet 1 of the soft dev.
process, i.e.
assume the user is an idiot.
It should always default to some "safe" value.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</id>
	<title>Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Requiring that doctors RTFM is the first step.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Requiring that doctors RTFM is the first step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Requiring that doctors RTFM is the first step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750567</id>
	<title>Distilled from the Therac-25 article</title>
	<author>argyle77</author>
	<datestamp>1255517940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"There is always another software bug."<br>
<br>
Changes made by the operator, confirmed to the operator via feedback from the display did not get carried forward into the execution of the job itself.  In addition, this problem was time dependant, i.e. if the same sequence of events had been executed at a different rate (slower), the resulting operation would have been different (not always easy to anticipate / test for).<br>
<br>
There was an improper overlap of instruction input and execution.  This was due to improper use of concurrency and shared variable space (keyword: atomic variables).<br>
<br>
Failures became lethal due to permissive hardware and software allowing non-sensical operations to proceed.  (Failure to provide application specific common-sense hardware and software interlocks).<br>
<br>
Frequent non-critical error codes trained staff to ignore failures.  Nonsensical error codes made it difficult for staff to follow up on failures.  Misclassified error codes (combined with nonsensical error codes) permitted staff to proceed even in the cases where proceeding could cause harm.<br>
<br>
Those writing software, because they are dealing with logic, can fall into a trap of overconfidence brought about by the binary ideology represented by the statement: (!wrong == right) &amp;&amp; (!right == wrong).  In reality, this can be a dangerous assumption.<br>
<br>
(256 - 1) + 1 = 0 in eight bits.  It may be innappropriate to increment a flag value without checking for special cases BEFOREHAND (especially in a concurrent environment).<br>
<br>
It was assumed that this design was as reliable as past designs despite the removal of certain hardware interlocks.  It is therefore presumed that the modern designers did not have any statistics with regards to how often the hardware interlocks actually operated.  If they'd known how important there were to the safety record of the previous machines, perhaps they would have considered them a higher priority in the design.<br>
<br>
On the fourth page of the Therac\_25 article (http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac\_25/Therac\_4.html), one of the letters AECL sent to the users group, dated 7/6/1987 mentioned an improvement to the software that caught my eye because I don't understand why it is an improvement.  Quote: "preventing copying of the control program on site".  Was this to prevent unexpected alterations, or was it to cover AECL in case of further liability?<br>
<br>
It seems to me there is a conflict of interest with regards to software infrastructure in life-critical environments (i.e. where lack of fail-safe is unforgiving) and the idea of a company's right to the privacy of their intellectual property.  It is in our interests both individually (we as patients who wish to avoid fatal radiation burns) and as companies (our products sell better and we are less liable because many eyes have brought our errors to our attention) for this type of embedded software to be open to public scrutiny.  In terms of competition, in this case it does not seem to me that there is much of a risk of other companies using this IP to their advantage with AECL because the specifics of the hardware are what dictate the details of the software solution.<br>
<br>
It terms of liability, it sucks to live in a world where we have to hide our ignorance, mistakes, and misteps from others in order to temporarily maintain our reputations instead of presenting them for review so that we can learn from what others have already learned.  I'd hate to die of a problem that you have already solved.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There is always another software bug .
" Changes made by the operator , confirmed to the operator via feedback from the display did not get carried forward into the execution of the job itself .
In addition , this problem was time dependant , i.e .
if the same sequence of events had been executed at a different rate ( slower ) , the resulting operation would have been different ( not always easy to anticipate / test for ) .
There was an improper overlap of instruction input and execution .
This was due to improper use of concurrency and shared variable space ( keyword : atomic variables ) .
Failures became lethal due to permissive hardware and software allowing non-sensical operations to proceed .
( Failure to provide application specific common-sense hardware and software interlocks ) .
Frequent non-critical error codes trained staff to ignore failures .
Nonsensical error codes made it difficult for staff to follow up on failures .
Misclassified error codes ( combined with nonsensical error codes ) permitted staff to proceed even in the cases where proceeding could cause harm .
Those writing software , because they are dealing with logic , can fall into a trap of overconfidence brought about by the binary ideology represented by the statement : ( ! wrong = = right ) &amp;&amp; ( ! right = = wrong ) .
In reality , this can be a dangerous assumption .
( 256 - 1 ) + 1 = 0 in eight bits .
It may be innappropriate to increment a flag value without checking for special cases BEFOREHAND ( especially in a concurrent environment ) .
It was assumed that this design was as reliable as past designs despite the removal of certain hardware interlocks .
It is therefore presumed that the modern designers did not have any statistics with regards to how often the hardware interlocks actually operated .
If they 'd known how important there were to the safety record of the previous machines , perhaps they would have considered them a higher priority in the design .
On the fourth page of the Therac \ _25 article ( http : //courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac \ _25/Therac \ _4.html ) , one of the letters AECL sent to the users group , dated 7/6/1987 mentioned an improvement to the software that caught my eye because I do n't understand why it is an improvement .
Quote : " preventing copying of the control program on site " .
Was this to prevent unexpected alterations , or was it to cover AECL in case of further liability ?
It seems to me there is a conflict of interest with regards to software infrastructure in life-critical environments ( i.e .
where lack of fail-safe is unforgiving ) and the idea of a company 's right to the privacy of their intellectual property .
It is in our interests both individually ( we as patients who wish to avoid fatal radiation burns ) and as companies ( our products sell better and we are less liable because many eyes have brought our errors to our attention ) for this type of embedded software to be open to public scrutiny .
In terms of competition , in this case it does not seem to me that there is much of a risk of other companies using this IP to their advantage with AECL because the specifics of the hardware are what dictate the details of the software solution .
It terms of liability , it sucks to live in a world where we have to hide our ignorance , mistakes , and misteps from others in order to temporarily maintain our reputations instead of presenting them for review so that we can learn from what others have already learned .
I 'd hate to die of a problem that you have already solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There is always another software bug.
"

Changes made by the operator, confirmed to the operator via feedback from the display did not get carried forward into the execution of the job itself.
In addition, this problem was time dependant, i.e.
if the same sequence of events had been executed at a different rate (slower), the resulting operation would have been different (not always easy to anticipate / test for).
There was an improper overlap of instruction input and execution.
This was due to improper use of concurrency and shared variable space (keyword: atomic variables).
Failures became lethal due to permissive hardware and software allowing non-sensical operations to proceed.
(Failure to provide application specific common-sense hardware and software interlocks).
Frequent non-critical error codes trained staff to ignore failures.
Nonsensical error codes made it difficult for staff to follow up on failures.
Misclassified error codes (combined with nonsensical error codes) permitted staff to proceed even in the cases where proceeding could cause harm.
Those writing software, because they are dealing with logic, can fall into a trap of overconfidence brought about by the binary ideology represented by the statement: (!wrong == right) &amp;&amp; (!right == wrong).
In reality, this can be a dangerous assumption.
(256 - 1) + 1 = 0 in eight bits.
It may be innappropriate to increment a flag value without checking for special cases BEFOREHAND (especially in a concurrent environment).
It was assumed that this design was as reliable as past designs despite the removal of certain hardware interlocks.
It is therefore presumed that the modern designers did not have any statistics with regards to how often the hardware interlocks actually operated.
If they'd known how important there were to the safety record of the previous machines, perhaps they would have considered them a higher priority in the design.
On the fourth page of the Therac\_25 article (http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac\_25/Therac\_4.html), one of the letters AECL sent to the users group, dated 7/6/1987 mentioned an improvement to the software that caught my eye because I don't understand why it is an improvement.
Quote: "preventing copying of the control program on site".
Was this to prevent unexpected alterations, or was it to cover AECL in case of further liability?
It seems to me there is a conflict of interest with regards to software infrastructure in life-critical environments (i.e.
where lack of fail-safe is unforgiving) and the idea of a company's right to the privacy of their intellectual property.
It is in our interests both individually (we as patients who wish to avoid fatal radiation burns) and as companies (our products sell better and we are less liable because many eyes have brought our errors to our attention) for this type of embedded software to be open to public scrutiny.
In terms of competition, in this case it does not seem to me that there is much of a risk of other companies using this IP to their advantage with AECL because the specifics of the hardware are what dictate the details of the software solution.
It terms of liability, it sucks to live in a world where we have to hide our ignorance, mistakes, and misteps from others in order to temporarily maintain our reputations instead of presenting them for review so that we can learn from what others have already learned.
I'd hate to die of a problem that you have already solved.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747109</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why isn't there a sensor in the machine that detects the level of radiation being emitted?  Shouldn't it have an alarm if the sensor is A) gone/bad or B) higher than X (where X is non-lethal, but still more than you'd ever need).  At least this way only ONE person would get the lethal dose!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is n't there a sensor in the machine that detects the level of radiation being emitted ?
Should n't it have an alarm if the sensor is A ) gone/bad or B ) higher than X ( where X is non-lethal , but still more than you 'd ever need ) .
At least this way only ONE person would get the lethal dose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why isn't there a sensor in the machine that detects the level of radiation being emitted?
Shouldn't it have an alarm if the sensor is A) gone/bad or B) higher than X (where X is non-lethal, but still more than you'd ever need).
At least this way only ONE person would get the lethal dose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29753903</id>
	<title>Whoever did this should be in jail.</title>
	<author>emarkp</author>
	<datestamp>1255548240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's horrifying that a radiation protocol was overridden without safeties in place.  Whoever did this should have verified the dose received in the scan by passing film or a detector through the scanner.</p><p>With the new protocols for brain perfusion and cardiac scans, the doctors are being careful about radiation exposure.  It's a shame whoever did this wasn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's horrifying that a radiation protocol was overridden without safeties in place .
Whoever did this should have verified the dose received in the scan by passing film or a detector through the scanner.With the new protocols for brain perfusion and cardiac scans , the doctors are being careful about radiation exposure .
It 's a shame whoever did this was n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's horrifying that a radiation protocol was overridden without safeties in place.
Whoever did this should have verified the dose received in the scan by passing film or a detector through the scanner.With the new protocols for brain perfusion and cardiac scans, the doctors are being careful about radiation exposure.
It's a shame whoever did this wasn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29756307</id>
	<title>idiots</title>
	<author>Goldsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1255617180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure things like this will only get less common now that we're giving these guys <a href="http://www.penncancer.org/penn\_news.cfm?ID=383" title="penncancer.org">particle accelerators.</a> [penncancer.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure things like this will only get less common now that we 're giving these guys particle accelerators .
[ penncancer.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure things like this will only get less common now that we're giving these guys particle accelerators.
[penncancer.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750737</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Rising Ape</author>
	<datestamp>1255519080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but in all those cases it's trivial to measure and there are even natural feedback mechanisms to stop you overdoing it.</p><p>My surprise was that a mere imaging technology could even be capable of delivering radiation levels that would cause tissue damage. For radiotherapy it's to be expected, as the whole point is to cause damage.</p><p>Hundreds of mSv is normally considered an enormous dose, well in excess of radiation protection standards in industry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but in all those cases it 's trivial to measure and there are even natural feedback mechanisms to stop you overdoing it.My surprise was that a mere imaging technology could even be capable of delivering radiation levels that would cause tissue damage .
For radiotherapy it 's to be expected , as the whole point is to cause damage.Hundreds of mSv is normally considered an enormous dose , well in excess of radiation protection standards in industry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but in all those cases it's trivial to measure and there are even natural feedback mechanisms to stop you overdoing it.My surprise was that a mere imaging technology could even be capable of delivering radiation levels that would cause tissue damage.
For radiotherapy it's to be expected, as the whole point is to cause damage.Hundreds of mSv is normally considered an enormous dose, well in excess of radiation protection standards in industry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748815</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752525</id>
	<title>Re:Feedback?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255531860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not as simple as turning off the x-rays when a particular dosage is exceeded.</p><p>First of all, the dosage varies greatly with patient size, anatomy, and the expected image quality that will be required (high contrast features, such as bone fractures, are easily identifiable in noisier images that can be generated with lower dose whereas low contrast features require lower noise and more dose).  Thus, the maximum dosage would need to be a function of the scan protocol and desired image quality.  Secondly, the scans take mere seconds, so you would need a very fast dose monitoring / feedback mechanism.  Finally, what is the implication if you do in fact abort the scan?  Presumably the doctor ordered the scan for a particular purpose, but if the scan is aborted (even if 90\% complete, say), then the data will not be sufficient to produce an image.  Thus, if you disable the x-rays, then you prevent further dose while providing no diagnostic value.  Would it be better to get 1 Gy of exposure with no diagnostic data produced or 1.1 Gy of exposure with a definitive diagnosis?</p><p>The hospital designed their own protocol (this was not a vendor supplied protocol) and did not validate the dosage levels of that protocol.  This was not a "one-off" error - every patient scanned with this protocol was overexposed - so simply validating the protocol at the hospital would have been sufficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not as simple as turning off the x-rays when a particular dosage is exceeded.First of all , the dosage varies greatly with patient size , anatomy , and the expected image quality that will be required ( high contrast features , such as bone fractures , are easily identifiable in noisier images that can be generated with lower dose whereas low contrast features require lower noise and more dose ) .
Thus , the maximum dosage would need to be a function of the scan protocol and desired image quality .
Secondly , the scans take mere seconds , so you would need a very fast dose monitoring / feedback mechanism .
Finally , what is the implication if you do in fact abort the scan ?
Presumably the doctor ordered the scan for a particular purpose , but if the scan is aborted ( even if 90 \ % complete , say ) , then the data will not be sufficient to produce an image .
Thus , if you disable the x-rays , then you prevent further dose while providing no diagnostic value .
Would it be better to get 1 Gy of exposure with no diagnostic data produced or 1.1 Gy of exposure with a definitive diagnosis ? The hospital designed their own protocol ( this was not a vendor supplied protocol ) and did not validate the dosage levels of that protocol .
This was not a " one-off " error - every patient scanned with this protocol was overexposed - so simply validating the protocol at the hospital would have been sufficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not as simple as turning off the x-rays when a particular dosage is exceeded.First of all, the dosage varies greatly with patient size, anatomy, and the expected image quality that will be required (high contrast features, such as bone fractures, are easily identifiable in noisier images that can be generated with lower dose whereas low contrast features require lower noise and more dose).
Thus, the maximum dosage would need to be a function of the scan protocol and desired image quality.
Secondly, the scans take mere seconds, so you would need a very fast dose monitoring / feedback mechanism.
Finally, what is the implication if you do in fact abort the scan?
Presumably the doctor ordered the scan for a particular purpose, but if the scan is aborted (even if 90\% complete, say), then the data will not be sufficient to produce an image.
Thus, if you disable the x-rays, then you prevent further dose while providing no diagnostic value.
Would it be better to get 1 Gy of exposure with no diagnostic data produced or 1.1 Gy of exposure with a definitive diagnosis?The hospital designed their own protocol (this was not a vendor supplied protocol) and did not validate the dosage levels of that protocol.
This was not a "one-off" error - every patient scanned with this protocol was overexposed - so simply validating the protocol at the hospital would have been sufficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752605</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255532640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The digital sensor has a crazy wide dynamic range, so whether you under or overexpose the patient, you still get a picture.  The difference is the noise.  The linked LA times article at least alludes to this.</p><p>What the LA times article does not discuss is that there is an incentive for the technician to overexpose the patients unless there is a good program for monitoring such as the one quoted in the parent.  Radiologists are tasked with reading many thousands of images a year and diagnosing medical conditions, they don't typically complain if the image has too little noise.</p><p>It seems that only recently has there been widespread recongnition of the problem, and the initial campaign is rightly focusing on pediatric doses, as pediatric imaging can give unnecesarily large doses when kids are scanned with adult settings and kids are the most sensitive to ionizing radiation.  Google the Image Gently campaign.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The digital sensor has a crazy wide dynamic range , so whether you under or overexpose the patient , you still get a picture .
The difference is the noise .
The linked LA times article at least alludes to this.What the LA times article does not discuss is that there is an incentive for the technician to overexpose the patients unless there is a good program for monitoring such as the one quoted in the parent .
Radiologists are tasked with reading many thousands of images a year and diagnosing medical conditions , they do n't typically complain if the image has too little noise.It seems that only recently has there been widespread recongnition of the problem , and the initial campaign is rightly focusing on pediatric doses , as pediatric imaging can give unnecesarily large doses when kids are scanned with adult settings and kids are the most sensitive to ionizing radiation .
Google the Image Gently campaign .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The digital sensor has a crazy wide dynamic range, so whether you under or overexpose the patient, you still get a picture.
The difference is the noise.
The linked LA times article at least alludes to this.What the LA times article does not discuss is that there is an incentive for the technician to overexpose the patients unless there is a good program for monitoring such as the one quoted in the parent.
Radiologists are tasked with reading many thousands of images a year and diagnosing medical conditions, they don't typically complain if the image has too little noise.It seems that only recently has there been widespread recongnition of the problem, and the initial campaign is rightly focusing on pediatric doses, as pediatric imaging can give unnecesarily large doses when kids are scanned with adult settings and kids are the most sensitive to ionizing radiation.
Google the Image Gently campaign.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752421</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255530960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Put your lunch in it. If it comes out hot maybe you should dial back a bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Put your lunch in it .
If it comes out hot maybe you should dial back a bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put your lunch in it.
If it comes out hot maybe you should dial back a bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748561</id>
	<title>Re:HULK MAD!</title>
	<author>EricTheGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1255551480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Anyone else read this as David Banner?</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't go there.  He'll get angry when he sees you've botched his name.  And you wouldn't like him when he's angry...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else read this as David Banner ? Do n't go there .
He 'll get angry when he sees you 've botched his name .
And you would n't like him when he 's angry.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else read this as David Banner?Don't go there.
He'll get angry when he sees you've botched his name.
And you wouldn't like him when he's angry...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747809</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1255548300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Er, no.  Cars don't kill people... people driving cars kill people.  The machine is only doing what its supposed to; its up to the operator to ensure the machine does what is safe.</p><p>As far as your "startling" numbers... looking around, the only startling thing is that these stupid people manage to have time to reproduce before killing themselves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , no .
Cars do n't kill people... people driving cars kill people .
The machine is only doing what its supposed to ; its up to the operator to ensure the machine does what is safe.As far as your " startling " numbers... looking around , the only startling thing is that these stupid people manage to have time to reproduce before killing themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, no.
Cars don't kill people... people driving cars kill people.
The machine is only doing what its supposed to; its up to the operator to ensure the machine does what is safe.As far as your "startling" numbers... looking around, the only startling thing is that these stupid people manage to have time to reproduce before killing themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29760455</id>
	<title>Re:Why use CT so much?</title>
	<author>Ihlosi</author>
	<datestamp>1255634700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>What does a CT get that an MRI can't that justifies making it the default option?</i> <p>

They are different tools for different jobs. CT is great for imaging bone structures, something that MRI sucks at. The resolution of CT is still higher than MRI, and of course CT scans can be done much faster than MRI scans. They're down to, what, a few seconds now? I had my last CT scan over 25 years ago, and it took half a fricken' hour. I had an MRI a few months later, and that to THREE AND A HALF freakin' HOURS. Since then, I've had checkup MRIs ever couple of years, and thankfully they only take about half an hour now.</p><p>

Also, neither CT scans nor MRI scans use \_radioactive\_ contrast agents. Contrast agents for MRI scans need to have certain magnetic properties, while contrast agents for CT scans need to block x-rays. Neither of these require the agent to be radioactive. You're probably confusing it with SPECT/PET/scintgraphy scans, which indeed require the use of radioactive substances (not as contrast agents, but as part of the scan).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does a CT get that an MRI ca n't that justifies making it the default option ?
They are different tools for different jobs .
CT is great for imaging bone structures , something that MRI sucks at .
The resolution of CT is still higher than MRI , and of course CT scans can be done much faster than MRI scans .
They 're down to , what , a few seconds now ?
I had my last CT scan over 25 years ago , and it took half a fricken ' hour .
I had an MRI a few months later , and that to THREE AND A HALF freakin ' HOURS .
Since then , I 've had checkup MRIs ever couple of years , and thankfully they only take about half an hour now .
Also , neither CT scans nor MRI scans use \ _radioactive \ _ contrast agents .
Contrast agents for MRI scans need to have certain magnetic properties , while contrast agents for CT scans need to block x-rays .
Neither of these require the agent to be radioactive .
You 're probably confusing it with SPECT/PET/scintgraphy scans , which indeed require the use of radioactive substances ( not as contrast agents , but as part of the scan ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does a CT get that an MRI can't that justifies making it the default option?
They are different tools for different jobs.
CT is great for imaging bone structures, something that MRI sucks at.
The resolution of CT is still higher than MRI, and of course CT scans can be done much faster than MRI scans.
They're down to, what, a few seconds now?
I had my last CT scan over 25 years ago, and it took half a fricken' hour.
I had an MRI a few months later, and that to THREE AND A HALF freakin' HOURS.
Since then, I've had checkup MRIs ever couple of years, and thankfully they only take about half an hour now.
Also, neither CT scans nor MRI scans use \_radioactive\_ contrast agents.
Contrast agents for MRI scans need to have certain magnetic properties, while contrast agents for CT scans need to block x-rays.
Neither of these require the agent to be radioactive.
You're probably confusing it with SPECT/PET/scintgraphy scans, which indeed require the use of radioactive substances (not as contrast agents, but as part of the scan).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746783</id>
	<title>IRBs for devices</title>
	<author>Improv</author>
	<datestamp>1255543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps having the equivalent of IRB review over any changes to devices of this sort would help prevent such problems. It makes sense for devices to be reconfigurable, and it makes sense for devices to try to warn people away from doing stupid things. In this case, they overrode the safeguards, and their judgement happened to be worse than that embodied in said safeguard. That is not always the case - the problem is when people make changes with potantially lethal consequence and there are not enough eyes on those changes.</p><p>IRBs were designed to help mitigate such problems with ethics - researchers lack the breadth of perspective and have a potential conflict of interest were they to judge appropriate research ethics on their own. The IRB acts as a second check on proposed experiments. Similar things with devices of this sort (X-rays, MRI scanners, etc) might prevent similar issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps having the equivalent of IRB review over any changes to devices of this sort would help prevent such problems .
It makes sense for devices to be reconfigurable , and it makes sense for devices to try to warn people away from doing stupid things .
In this case , they overrode the safeguards , and their judgement happened to be worse than that embodied in said safeguard .
That is not always the case - the problem is when people make changes with potantially lethal consequence and there are not enough eyes on those changes.IRBs were designed to help mitigate such problems with ethics - researchers lack the breadth of perspective and have a potential conflict of interest were they to judge appropriate research ethics on their own .
The IRB acts as a second check on proposed experiments .
Similar things with devices of this sort ( X-rays , MRI scanners , etc ) might prevent similar issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps having the equivalent of IRB review over any changes to devices of this sort would help prevent such problems.
It makes sense for devices to be reconfigurable, and it makes sense for devices to try to warn people away from doing stupid things.
In this case, they overrode the safeguards, and their judgement happened to be worse than that embodied in said safeguard.
That is not always the case - the problem is when people make changes with potantially lethal consequence and there are not enough eyes on those changes.IRBs were designed to help mitigate such problems with ethics - researchers lack the breadth of perspective and have a potential conflict of interest were they to judge appropriate research ethics on their own.
The IRB acts as a second check on proposed experiments.
Similar things with devices of this sort (X-rays, MRI scanners, etc) might prevent similar issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553</id>
	<title>Silver lining</title>
	<author>Wilson\_6500</author>
	<datestamp>1255542720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doctors are woefully unaware or unwilling to admit that CT scans do involve some risk because they very well can give appreciable radiation dose, often far more than that of standard radiography. They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide, and while they do offer immense benefit, it is vital that the radiation hazard be comprehended. I hope that doctors and technologists will take away from this the lesson that they do need to be aware of radiation safety and radiation risk (and some basic medical physics) even if radiation is not their primary specialty. It's not just the health or medical physicist's problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Doctors are woefully unaware or unwilling to admit that CT scans do involve some risk because they very well can give appreciable radiation dose , often far more than that of standard radiography .
They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide , and while they do offer immense benefit , it is vital that the radiation hazard be comprehended .
I hope that doctors and technologists will take away from this the lesson that they do need to be aware of radiation safety and radiation risk ( and some basic medical physics ) even if radiation is not their primary specialty .
It 's not just the health or medical physicist 's problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doctors are woefully unaware or unwilling to admit that CT scans do involve some risk because they very well can give appreciable radiation dose, often far more than that of standard radiography.
They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide, and while they do offer immense benefit, it is vital that the radiation hazard be comprehended.
I hope that doctors and technologists will take away from this the lesson that they do need to be aware of radiation safety and radiation risk (and some basic medical physics) even if radiation is not their primary specialty.
It's not just the health or medical physicist's problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752869</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255535160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did those so-called "doctors" forget that it was the largest Patch Tuesday in history? Don't those idiots know that keeping Windows updated is more important than the lives of 206 replaceable end-users. Those "casual users" can wait an extra day. I'd bet my 640K that half of them don't even use Microsoft(R) Genuine Advantage(TM) Windows(R) software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did those so-called " doctors " forget that it was the largest Patch Tuesday in history ?
Do n't those idiots know that keeping Windows updated is more important than the lives of 206 replaceable end-users .
Those " casual users " can wait an extra day .
I 'd bet my 640K that half of them do n't even use Microsoft ( R ) Genuine Advantage ( TM ) Windows ( R ) software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did those so-called "doctors" forget that it was the largest Patch Tuesday in history?
Don't those idiots know that keeping Windows updated is more important than the lives of 206 replaceable end-users.
Those "casual users" can wait an extra day.
I'd bet my 640K that half of them don't even use Microsoft(R) Genuine Advantage(TM) Windows(R) software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747783</id>
	<title>Testing wouldn't catch it</title>
	<author>Geof</author>
	<datestamp>1255548180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is not very detailed, but my reading of it is that the default dose was not unsafe.  If I am correct (hard to tell), what happened was that a doctor doing a specialized procedure programmed a custom dose.  Then the machine defaulted to this new value for subsequent procedures, but the staff assumed it was using it's previous (safe) default.</p><blockquote><div><p>There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine . . . Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions, the higher dose was essentially locked in.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>What is particularly appalling is that it took 18 months to catch this, and they only found out because a patient complained of hair falling out.  The FDA recommendation is that doctors double-check that the machine is actually applying the correct dose.</p><p>It seems clear to me that this is a stop-gap that indicates a design flaw.  It is not enough for the machine to display the actual dose:  the procedures for using it must ensure that this is not missed.  From the Therac-25 link:</p><blockquote><div><p>There also needs to be greater recognition of potential conflicts between user-friendly interfaces and safety. One goal of interface design is to make the interface as easy as possible for the operator to use. But in the Therac-25, some design features (for example, not requiring the operator to reenter patient prescriptions after mistakes) and later changes (allowing a carriage return to indicate that information has been entered correctly) enhanced usability at the expense of safety.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>This describes perfectly the recent incident.  User-friendly defaults resulted in health professionals making unsafe assumptions.  Blaming them does nothing to prevent such problems in the future.  The system is broken.</p><p>Incidentally, I am not convinced by the lessons learned about Therac-25.  It emphasizes proper software engineering practices and licensing.  This may be necessary but insufficient.</p><blockquote><div><p>Taking a couple of programming courses or programming a home computer does not qualify anyone to produce safety-critical software. Although certification of software engineers is not yet required, more events like those associated with the Therac-25 will make such certification inevitable.</p></div> </blockquote><p>This might not be enough.  Initial testing of the machine had been of hardware only, though the problem was with software.  Following the initial reports of an overdose, the company replaced a hardware component.  If the real problems fall outside current engineering practices, they may be completely overlooked.  In the recent case, the problem appears to include the practices of medical staff.  These are part of the technical system, so they need to be treated as such by engineers.  Ignoring that is very much like focusing on the hardware to the exclusion of the software.  Technical systems are not clearly bounded, and are probably less so as time goes on.  There always needs to be a broader view.</p><p>Therac-25 suffered suffered (among other things) from race conditions.  The mere idea of having a deadly device that is even theoretically susceptible to race conditions terrifies me:  if a race condition programming error is even potentially possible, I would want to make damned sure there's an independent hardware or software check to make sure failures will be caught.  Problems like this can be incredibly subtle.  I wonder if overconfidence in engineering might lead to complacency.</p><p>What really jumped out at me, however, was the role of the user community, which was formally excluded from the engineering.  Following the discovery of one deadly software error, the company (AECL) fixed it and assumed the problem was solved:  after which another patient died from a different bug.  The users asked for access to the source code.  This was denied.  Unlike the company (and likely its engineers), the users clearly understood that they were part of the system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is not very detailed , but my reading of it is that the default dose was not unsafe .
If I am correct ( hard to tell ) , what happened was that a doctor doing a specialized procedure programmed a custom dose .
Then the machine defaulted to this new value for subsequent procedures , but the staff assumed it was using it 's previous ( safe ) default.There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine .
. .
Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions , the higher dose was essentially locked in .
What is particularly appalling is that it took 18 months to catch this , and they only found out because a patient complained of hair falling out .
The FDA recommendation is that doctors double-check that the machine is actually applying the correct dose.It seems clear to me that this is a stop-gap that indicates a design flaw .
It is not enough for the machine to display the actual dose : the procedures for using it must ensure that this is not missed .
From the Therac-25 link : There also needs to be greater recognition of potential conflicts between user-friendly interfaces and safety .
One goal of interface design is to make the interface as easy as possible for the operator to use .
But in the Therac-25 , some design features ( for example , not requiring the operator to reenter patient prescriptions after mistakes ) and later changes ( allowing a carriage return to indicate that information has been entered correctly ) enhanced usability at the expense of safety .
This describes perfectly the recent incident .
User-friendly defaults resulted in health professionals making unsafe assumptions .
Blaming them does nothing to prevent such problems in the future .
The system is broken.Incidentally , I am not convinced by the lessons learned about Therac-25 .
It emphasizes proper software engineering practices and licensing .
This may be necessary but insufficient.Taking a couple of programming courses or programming a home computer does not qualify anyone to produce safety-critical software .
Although certification of software engineers is not yet required , more events like those associated with the Therac-25 will make such certification inevitable .
This might not be enough .
Initial testing of the machine had been of hardware only , though the problem was with software .
Following the initial reports of an overdose , the company replaced a hardware component .
If the real problems fall outside current engineering practices , they may be completely overlooked .
In the recent case , the problem appears to include the practices of medical staff .
These are part of the technical system , so they need to be treated as such by engineers .
Ignoring that is very much like focusing on the hardware to the exclusion of the software .
Technical systems are not clearly bounded , and are probably less so as time goes on .
There always needs to be a broader view.Therac-25 suffered suffered ( among other things ) from race conditions .
The mere idea of having a deadly device that is even theoretically susceptible to race conditions terrifies me : if a race condition programming error is even potentially possible , I would want to make damned sure there 's an independent hardware or software check to make sure failures will be caught .
Problems like this can be incredibly subtle .
I wonder if overconfidence in engineering might lead to complacency.What really jumped out at me , however , was the role of the user community , which was formally excluded from the engineering .
Following the discovery of one deadly software error , the company ( AECL ) fixed it and assumed the problem was solved : after which another patient died from a different bug .
The users asked for access to the source code .
This was denied .
Unlike the company ( and likely its engineers ) , the users clearly understood that they were part of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is not very detailed, but my reading of it is that the default dose was not unsafe.
If I am correct (hard to tell), what happened was that a doctor doing a specialized procedure programmed a custom dose.
Then the machine defaulted to this new value for subsequent procedures, but the staff assumed it was using it's previous (safe) default.There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine .
. .
Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions, the higher dose was essentially locked in.
What is particularly appalling is that it took 18 months to catch this, and they only found out because a patient complained of hair falling out.
The FDA recommendation is that doctors double-check that the machine is actually applying the correct dose.It seems clear to me that this is a stop-gap that indicates a design flaw.
It is not enough for the machine to display the actual dose:  the procedures for using it must ensure that this is not missed.
From the Therac-25 link:There also needs to be greater recognition of potential conflicts between user-friendly interfaces and safety.
One goal of interface design is to make the interface as easy as possible for the operator to use.
But in the Therac-25, some design features (for example, not requiring the operator to reenter patient prescriptions after mistakes) and later changes (allowing a carriage return to indicate that information has been entered correctly) enhanced usability at the expense of safety.
This describes perfectly the recent incident.
User-friendly defaults resulted in health professionals making unsafe assumptions.
Blaming them does nothing to prevent such problems in the future.
The system is broken.Incidentally, I am not convinced by the lessons learned about Therac-25.
It emphasizes proper software engineering practices and licensing.
This may be necessary but insufficient.Taking a couple of programming courses or programming a home computer does not qualify anyone to produce safety-critical software.
Although certification of software engineers is not yet required, more events like those associated with the Therac-25 will make such certification inevitable.
This might not be enough.
Initial testing of the machine had been of hardware only, though the problem was with software.
Following the initial reports of an overdose, the company replaced a hardware component.
If the real problems fall outside current engineering practices, they may be completely overlooked.
In the recent case, the problem appears to include the practices of medical staff.
These are part of the technical system, so they need to be treated as such by engineers.
Ignoring that is very much like focusing on the hardware to the exclusion of the software.
Technical systems are not clearly bounded, and are probably less so as time goes on.
There always needs to be a broader view.Therac-25 suffered suffered (among other things) from race conditions.
The mere idea of having a deadly device that is even theoretically susceptible to race conditions terrifies me:  if a race condition programming error is even potentially possible, I would want to make damned sure there's an independent hardware or software check to make sure failures will be caught.
Problems like this can be incredibly subtle.
I wonder if overconfidence in engineering might lead to complacency.What really jumped out at me, however, was the role of the user community, which was formally excluded from the engineering.
Following the discovery of one deadly software error, the company (AECL) fixed it and assumed the problem was solved:  after which another patient died from a different bug.
The users asked for access to the source code.
This was denied.
Unlike the company (and likely its engineers), the users clearly understood that they were part of the system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</id>
	<title>Default setting...</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1255542420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be "Emit zero radiation". Then for each exposure, set the level of radiation you intend to use. This way, you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit.
<br> <br>
Better investigate "Hey, we got no picture" than "Hey, we got pictures, but everyone dies after that..."
<br> <br>
Didn't RTFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be " Emit zero radiation " .
Then for each exposure , set the level of radiation you intend to use .
This way , you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit .
Better investigate " Hey , we got no picture " than " Hey , we got pictures , but everyone dies after that... " Did n't RTFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The default setting for an equipment that can be lethal should be "Emit zero radiation".
Then for each exposure, set the level of radiation you intend to use.
This way, you ALWAYS KNOW the level of radiation the equipment will emit.
Better investigate "Hey, we got no picture" than "Hey, we got pictures, but everyone dies after that..."
 
Didn't RTFA.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747353</id>
	<title>soft error</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1255546380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine . . .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>," officials at the renowned Los Angeles hospital said in a written statement that provided no other details about how the error occurred. "As a result, the use of this protocol resulted in a higher than expected amount of radiation."<br>
<br>

The dose of radiation was eight times what it should have been.<br>
<br>

Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions, the higher dose was essentially locked in. Each patient who got the procedure -- known as a CT brain perfusion scan -- was subjected to the overdose<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Does that mean there was a programming error. Who wrote the new protocol, who implimented it, who was responsible for testing it? And why isn't there a sensor in the device that sounds an alarm if the radiation exceeds a safe limit?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine .
. .
, " officials at the renowned Los Angeles hospital said in a written statement that provided no other details about how the error occurred .
" As a result , the use of this protocol resulted in a higher than expected amount of radiation .
" The dose of radiation was eight times what it should have been .
Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions , the higher dose was essentially locked in .
Each patient who got the procedure -- known as a CT brain perfusion scan -- was subjected to the overdose . . Does that mean there was a programming error .
Who wrote the new protocol , who implimented it , who was responsible for testing it ?
And why is n't there a sensor in the device that sounds an alarm if the radiation exceeds a safe limit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There was a misunderstanding about an embedded default setting applied by the machine .
. .
," officials at the renowned Los Angeles hospital said in a written statement that provided no other details about how the error occurred.
"As a result, the use of this protocol resulted in a higher than expected amount of radiation.
"


The dose of radiation was eight times what it should have been.
Once the scanner was programmed with the new instructions, the higher dose was essentially locked in.
Each patient who got the procedure -- known as a CT brain perfusion scan -- was subjected to the overdose ..


Does that mean there was a programming error.
Who wrote the new protocol, who implimented it, who was responsible for testing it?
And why isn't there a sensor in the device that sounds an alarm if the radiation exceeds a safe limit?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746793</id>
	<title>What is amazing</title>
	<author>al0ha</author>
	<datestamp>1255543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is the lack of patient participation in their own health initiatives.
<br>
<br>
Approximately 90 people over 18 months suffered hair loss and/or burns on their head, and not one of them reported it.
<br>
<br>
Patients need to wake up and realize doctors and the medical establishment try to do their best, but they are only human and a vast majority of what they do is simply educated guessing.
<br>
<br>
The patient is ultimately responsible for his/her own health care, so drill the doctors and do not let them get away with brushing off your concerns.  You know your body best, not the doctor - even though their degree generally makes them think otherwise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the lack of patient participation in their own health initiatives .
Approximately 90 people over 18 months suffered hair loss and/or burns on their head , and not one of them reported it .
Patients need to wake up and realize doctors and the medical establishment try to do their best , but they are only human and a vast majority of what they do is simply educated guessing .
The patient is ultimately responsible for his/her own health care , so drill the doctors and do not let them get away with brushing off your concerns .
You know your body best , not the doctor - even though their degree generally makes them think otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the lack of patient participation in their own health initiatives.
Approximately 90 people over 18 months suffered hair loss and/or burns on their head, and not one of them reported it.
Patients need to wake up and realize doctors and the medical establishment try to do their best, but they are only human and a vast majority of what they do is simply educated guessing.
The patient is ultimately responsible for his/her own health care, so drill the doctors and do not let them get away with brushing off your concerns.
You know your body best, not the doctor - even though their degree generally makes them think otherwise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751237</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255522080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least, in european radiation regs, there are no legal dose limit for pasients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least , in european radiation regs , there are no legal dose limit for pasients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least, in european radiation regs, there are no legal dose limit for pasients.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747505</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754157</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>bickerdyke</author>
	<datestamp>1255638180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not really clear in the article, but it seems that the machine emitted exactly the amount of radiation it was programmed to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not really clear in the article , but it seems that the machine emitted exactly the amount of radiation it was programmed to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not really clear in the article, but it seems that the machine emitted exactly the amount of radiation it was programmed to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747281</id>
	<title>And you think more IT will make things better?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if this CT error bothers you, do you really think the onslaught of IT technology being thrust at hospitals is going to make things in health care any better?  The Obama Administration is creating a feeding frenzy among the IT companies to rush in and collect their piece of the pie.  To do this, they are creating electronic health records and connecting medical devices to regular IT networks.  Who is testing that stuff?  Mind you, I don't think Obama's move is necessarily bad, just the blind faith driving it that more technology is always a good thing.  Even NASA finally figured out that their "Faster, Cheaper, Better" programs didn't mean "Faster + Cheaper = Better."</p><p>Granted, the Silicon Valley/Redmond group have created some remarkable technology, but should we take for granted they are doing all the right things in areas they've never worked in before?  It seems to me we all put way too much faith in our technology... as illustrated by the comments that this CT should correct for all potential errors a human might make.  If this were really the case, why is there still so much crappy hardware and software out there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if this CT error bothers you , do you really think the onslaught of IT technology being thrust at hospitals is going to make things in health care any better ?
The Obama Administration is creating a feeding frenzy among the IT companies to rush in and collect their piece of the pie .
To do this , they are creating electronic health records and connecting medical devices to regular IT networks .
Who is testing that stuff ?
Mind you , I do n't think Obama 's move is necessarily bad , just the blind faith driving it that more technology is always a good thing .
Even NASA finally figured out that their " Faster , Cheaper , Better " programs did n't mean " Faster + Cheaper = Better .
" Granted , the Silicon Valley/Redmond group have created some remarkable technology , but should we take for granted they are doing all the right things in areas they 've never worked in before ?
It seems to me we all put way too much faith in our technology... as illustrated by the comments that this CT should correct for all potential errors a human might make .
If this were really the case , why is there still so much crappy hardware and software out there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if this CT error bothers you, do you really think the onslaught of IT technology being thrust at hospitals is going to make things in health care any better?
The Obama Administration is creating a feeding frenzy among the IT companies to rush in and collect their piece of the pie.
To do this, they are creating electronic health records and connecting medical devices to regular IT networks.
Who is testing that stuff?
Mind you, I don't think Obama's move is necessarily bad, just the blind faith driving it that more technology is always a good thing.
Even NASA finally figured out that their "Faster, Cheaper, Better" programs didn't mean "Faster + Cheaper = Better.
"Granted, the Silicon Valley/Redmond group have created some remarkable technology, but should we take for granted they are doing all the right things in areas they've never worked in before?
It seems to me we all put way too much faith in our technology... as illustrated by the comments that this CT should correct for all potential errors a human might make.
If this were really the case, why is there still so much crappy hardware and software out there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748233</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255550100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't be such a dolt. The machine is the product of evolution. Millions of years ago a bolt of lightning hit some random alloys and a simple logic circuit was born. Fast-forward to now, and *poof* CT scanner! It just make sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be such a dolt .
The machine is the product of evolution .
Millions of years ago a bolt of lightning hit some random alloys and a simple logic circuit was born .
Fast-forward to now , and * poof * CT scanner !
It just make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be such a dolt.
The machine is the product of evolution.
Millions of years ago a bolt of lightning hit some random alloys and a simple logic circuit was born.
Fast-forward to now, and *poof* CT scanner!
It just make sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971</id>
	<title>Add a dialog box...</title>
	<author>ArcadeNut</author>
	<datestamp>1255549020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That pops up for the operator to respond to....</p><p>Are you sure you want to kill this patient?</p><p>Yes No Retry</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That pops up for the operator to respond to....Are you sure you want to kill this patient ? Yes No Retry</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That pops up for the operator to respond to....Are you sure you want to kill this patient?Yes No Retry</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748649</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255551960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if this is an usability problem with the display of radiation dosage. If it's just a number, then no wonder that nobody noticed. But if addition you have some kind of an reference point or a bar displaying the relative dosage against a known value in addition to colour, this might even been noticed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if this is an usability problem with the display of radiation dosage .
If it 's just a number , then no wonder that nobody noticed .
But if addition you have some kind of an reference point or a bar displaying the relative dosage against a known value in addition to colour , this might even been noticed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if this is an usability problem with the display of radiation dosage.
If it's just a number, then no wonder that nobody noticed.
But if addition you have some kind of an reference point or a bar displaying the relative dosage against a known value in addition to colour, this might even been noticed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747417</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Geoffrey.landis</author>
	<datestamp>1255546680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?""
</p><p>Well, actually, sure we can... just as soon as we stop adding new technologies.
</p><p>New technologies mean new procedures, which mean that the old safeguards are no longer good.  Once you stop changing the technologies, you can go down the learning curve, and redesign the interfaces (and the training check lists) to avoid those error types.
</p><p>But, of course, that means stopping progress as well.  Your choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable ?
" " Well , actually , sure we can... just as soon as we stop adding new technologies .
New technologies mean new procedures , which mean that the old safeguards are no longer good .
Once you stop changing the technologies , you can go down the learning curve , and redesign the interfaces ( and the training check lists ) to avoid those error types .
But , of course , that means stopping progress as well .
Your choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?
""
Well, actually, sure we can... just as soon as we stop adding new technologies.
New technologies mean new procedures, which mean that the old safeguards are no longer good.
Once you stop changing the technologies, you can go down the learning curve, and redesign the interfaces (and the training check lists) to avoid those error types.
But, of course, that means stopping progress as well.
Your choice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749657</id>
	<title>Obligatory Terminator Reference</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255513200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All (CT Scanners) are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they (scan) with a perfect operational record. The Skynet (CT Scanner) funding bill is passed. The system goes online on August 4th, 1997. Human decisions are removed from (CT Scans). Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All ( CT Scanners ) are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers , becoming fully unmanned .
Afterwards , they ( scan ) with a perfect operational record .
The Skynet ( CT Scanner ) funding bill is passed .
The system goes online on August 4th , 1997 .
Human decisions are removed from ( CT Scans ) .
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate .
It becomes self-aware 2 : 14 AM , Eastern time , August 29th .
In a panic , they try to pull the plug.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All (CT Scanners) are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned.
Afterwards, they (scan) with a perfect operational record.
The Skynet (CT Scanner) funding bill is passed.
The system goes online on August 4th, 1997.
Human decisions are removed from (CT Scans).
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate.
It becomes self-aware 2:14 AM, Eastern time, August 29th.
In a panic, they try to pull the plug...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747325</id>
	<title>superior private healthcare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255546200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only with the superior private health care system of the United States can you get 8x the dose of radiation in your CT scan!
<br> <br>
I'll... I'll show myself out.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only with the superior private health care system of the United States can you get 8x the dose of radiation in your CT scan !
I 'll... I 'll show myself out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only with the superior private health care system of the United States can you get 8x the dose of radiation in your CT scan!
I'll... I'll show myself out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754849</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>smoker2</author>
	<datestamp>1255605060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons, both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation, and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.</p></div></blockquote><p>That used to be widespread in engineering companies. Any machine that has the potential to injure its operator has two buttons that need to be pressed simultaneously in order to operate it. But people found ways of doing it one handed (using lumps of wood, or other devious means) so that they could work faster. So they ended up putting hoods over the buttons so that it became almost impossible to use a cheat. It's cheaper to work slightly slower than it is to allow operators to mash their fingers or get dragged into the machines.<br> <br>One guy I knew was working a pipe reducing machine, where two powerful clamps gripped the pipe while the former* did its stuff. Because of the anti-corrosion oil on the pipes, the clamps used to start slipping and had to be wiped dry periodically. This bozo decided to wipe the oil off while the machine was still switched on, and stepped on the actuator instantly mashing 3 fingers on one hand. Self inflicted I'm afraid. Yes he had been trained to turn off the power first, but even so, surely he had some instinct for self preservation ? It appears not.<br> <br>* former in this case is the name of the part that "forms" the metal into a new shape.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons , both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation , and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.That used to be widespread in engineering companies .
Any machine that has the potential to injure its operator has two buttons that need to be pressed simultaneously in order to operate it .
But people found ways of doing it one handed ( using lumps of wood , or other devious means ) so that they could work faster .
So they ended up putting hoods over the buttons so that it became almost impossible to use a cheat .
It 's cheaper to work slightly slower than it is to allow operators to mash their fingers or get dragged into the machines .
One guy I knew was working a pipe reducing machine , where two powerful clamps gripped the pipe while the former * did its stuff .
Because of the anti-corrosion oil on the pipes , the clamps used to start slipping and had to be wiped dry periodically .
This bozo decided to wipe the oil off while the machine was still switched on , and stepped on the actuator instantly mashing 3 fingers on one hand .
Self inflicted I 'm afraid .
Yes he had been trained to turn off the power first , but even so , surely he had some instinct for self preservation ?
It appears not .
* former in this case is the name of the part that " forms " the metal into a new shape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I heard one story where a machine had two widely separated buttons, both of which had to be held down for safety reasons to perform a certain operation, and then someone discovered a customer that kept a weight near the machine for use on the second button rather than having a colleague help.That used to be widespread in engineering companies.
Any machine that has the potential to injure its operator has two buttons that need to be pressed simultaneously in order to operate it.
But people found ways of doing it one handed (using lumps of wood, or other devious means) so that they could work faster.
So they ended up putting hoods over the buttons so that it became almost impossible to use a cheat.
It's cheaper to work slightly slower than it is to allow operators to mash their fingers or get dragged into the machines.
One guy I knew was working a pipe reducing machine, where two powerful clamps gripped the pipe while the former* did its stuff.
Because of the anti-corrosion oil on the pipes, the clamps used to start slipping and had to be wiped dry periodically.
This bozo decided to wipe the oil off while the machine was still switched on, and stepped on the actuator instantly mashing 3 fingers on one hand.
Self inflicted I'm afraid.
Yes he had been trained to turn off the power first, but even so, surely he had some instinct for self preservation ?
It appears not.
* former in this case is the name of the part that "forms" the metal into a new shape.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751255</id>
	<title>Yes</title>
	<author>Alaren</author>
	<datestamp>1255522200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While it is not this situation, but another, that involved actual death, yes--I agree with the substance of your comment.  This is exactly what I was trying to convey when I mentioned the "cost of doing business."  Thanks for helping to clarify that, I am not always as clear as I would prefer. d^\_^b</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is not this situation , but another , that involved actual death , yes--I agree with the substance of your comment .
This is exactly what I was trying to convey when I mentioned the " cost of doing business .
" Thanks for helping to clarify that , I am not always as clear as I would prefer .
d ^ \ _ ^ b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is not this situation, but another, that involved actual death, yes--I agree with the substance of your comment.
This is exactly what I was trying to convey when I mentioned the "cost of doing business.
"  Thanks for helping to clarify that, I am not always as clear as I would prefer.
d^\_^b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748197</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tschernobyl my ass!</p><p>I do not want to know who designed the software to control nuclear power plants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tschernobyl my ass ! I do not want to know who designed the software to control nuclear power plants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tschernobyl my ass!I do not want to know who designed the software to control nuclear power plants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789</id>
	<title>Feedback?</title>
	<author>TopSpin</author>
	<datestamp>1255543800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"</p></div><p>No.  As long as correctness can't be proven and operators are permitted to create unanalyzed conditions by altering protocols there will always be risk.  There are probably other mis-configured CT scanners out there in use right now that have been overdosing patients for years.</p><p>CT scans use X-rays; an easily detected frequency of light.  Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy?  If that is possible then create an interlock that can shut down the emitter when the net energy gets out of bounds and require that any such incident be NRC reportable.  If the detector excluded from alteration by the operators then software bugs, misunderstandings, etc. can be detected even years after the last engineer had contact with the system, either before harm is done or at least before hundreds of patients are literally burned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable ? " No .
As long as correctness ca n't be proven and operators are permitted to create unanalyzed conditions by altering protocols there will always be risk .
There are probably other mis-configured CT scanners out there in use right now that have been overdosing patients for years.CT scans use X-rays ; an easily detected frequency of light .
Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy ?
If that is possible then create an interlock that can shut down the emitter when the net energy gets out of bounds and require that any such incident be NRC reportable .
If the detector excluded from alteration by the operators then software bugs , misunderstandings , etc .
can be detected even years after the last engineer had contact with the system , either before harm is done or at least before hundreds of patients are literally burned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"No.
As long as correctness can't be proven and operators are permitted to create unanalyzed conditions by altering protocols there will always be risk.
There are probably other mis-configured CT scanners out there in use right now that have been overdosing patients for years.CT scans use X-rays; an easily detected frequency of light.
Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy?
If that is possible then create an interlock that can shut down the emitter when the net energy gets out of bounds and require that any such incident be NRC reportable.
If the detector excluded from alteration by the operators then software bugs, misunderstandings, etc.
can be detected even years after the last engineer had contact with the system, either before harm is done or at least before hundreds of patients are literally burned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>courteaudotbiz</author>
	<datestamp>1255542720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mmmmm, anyway, people are always involved if you have a machine. The machine didn't build itself!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mmmmm , anyway , people are always involved if you have a machine .
The machine did n't build itself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mmmmm, anyway, people are always involved if you have a machine.
The machine didn't build itself!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746841</id>
	<title>Re:No, there will always be risk</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1255544040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It isn't removing the risk that's an issue - it's calculating the risk benefit ratio and, in this case, understanding what you're doing.  While we don't have enough information to really know what happened (not that this sort of this ever stops us here), it seems like the staff the overrode the built in protocols didn't think it through well enough or perhaps didn't RTFM.<br> <br>
It is heartening to note that at least the new GE Brightstars's print out the radiation exposure given with each study as part of the routine patient data.  That little bit was FDA mandated.  (They also run Linux, but that isn't germane to this discussion.)<br> <br>
I am a bit surprised at all this.  I would have thought that any changes to the defaults that clearly did not result in a lowering of radiation dose (which TFA notes is fairly common) did not involve a careful step through of what exactly would happen.  These machines are pretty damn complicated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is n't removing the risk that 's an issue - it 's calculating the risk benefit ratio and , in this case , understanding what you 're doing .
While we do n't have enough information to really know what happened ( not that this sort of this ever stops us here ) , it seems like the staff the overrode the built in protocols did n't think it through well enough or perhaps did n't RTFM .
It is heartening to note that at least the new GE Brightstars 's print out the radiation exposure given with each study as part of the routine patient data .
That little bit was FDA mandated .
( They also run Linux , but that is n't germane to this discussion .
) I am a bit surprised at all this .
I would have thought that any changes to the defaults that clearly did not result in a lowering of radiation dose ( which TFA notes is fairly common ) did not involve a careful step through of what exactly would happen .
These machines are pretty damn complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It isn't removing the risk that's an issue - it's calculating the risk benefit ratio and, in this case, understanding what you're doing.
While we don't have enough information to really know what happened (not that this sort of this ever stops us here), it seems like the staff the overrode the built in protocols didn't think it through well enough or perhaps didn't RTFM.
It is heartening to note that at least the new GE Brightstars's print out the radiation exposure given with each study as part of the routine patient data.
That little bit was FDA mandated.
(They also run Linux, but that isn't germane to this discussion.
) 
I am a bit surprised at all this.
I would have thought that any changes to the defaults that clearly did not result in a lowering of radiation dose (which TFA notes is fairly common) did not involve a careful step through of what exactly would happen.
These machines are pretty damn complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748091</id>
	<title>Re:Medical Staff were a big part of the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem. Patients complained of being burned, but their complaints were essentially ignored. Meanwhile, they were sent back for multiple treatments. Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns.</i></p><p>I was one of those people who had a single trip through a Therac 25.<br>There were obvious burns on my surface skin, and many further issues inside my lung than I had before treatment.</p><p>Thankfully the unit was attached to the side/head of a bed, and was not an enclosed space.<br>It was trivial for me to stand up and get off the bed after not a single person in the room reacted to me repeatedly saying the burning pain was too much to stand.</p><p>At one point, I was convinced that one doctor was trying to harm me.<br>I refused to lay back down on the bed and cooperate.  I told the doctor to lay there, take my vest, and have the tech give him the same dose.  He of course refused, despite arguing it was safe.<br>If the doctor refuses to do something perfectly safe, yet wants to submit others to it, you know something is wrong.  I even had multiple x-ray doses over a 4 month period, where the doctor had zero (that he admitted to anyway) so one dose would be much less harmful to him than one more dose for me.</p><p>I did start the process of a lawsuit, but the hospital insurance company wanted to settle out of court, and my lawyer strongly recommended taking it, as proving that the Therac machine did not live up to the manufacturer requirements would be an uphill battle that I probably would not win.</p><p>If we only knew then what we know now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it 's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem .
Patients complained of being burned , but their complaints were essentially ignored .
Meanwhile , they were sent back for multiple treatments .
Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns.I was one of those people who had a single trip through a Therac 25.There were obvious burns on my surface skin , and many further issues inside my lung than I had before treatment.Thankfully the unit was attached to the side/head of a bed , and was not an enclosed space.It was trivial for me to stand up and get off the bed after not a single person in the room reacted to me repeatedly saying the burning pain was too much to stand.At one point , I was convinced that one doctor was trying to harm me.I refused to lay back down on the bed and cooperate .
I told the doctor to lay there , take my vest , and have the tech give him the same dose .
He of course refused , despite arguing it was safe.If the doctor refuses to do something perfectly safe , yet wants to submit others to it , you know something is wrong .
I even had multiple x-ray doses over a 4 month period , where the doctor had zero ( that he admitted to anyway ) so one dose would be much less harmful to him than one more dose for me.I did start the process of a lawsuit , but the hospital insurance company wanted to settle out of court , and my lawyer strongly recommended taking it , as proving that the Therac machine did not live up to the manufacturer requirements would be an uphill battle that I probably would not win.If we only knew then what we know now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem.
Patients complained of being burned, but their complaints were essentially ignored.
Meanwhile, they were sent back for multiple treatments.
Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns.I was one of those people who had a single trip through a Therac 25.There were obvious burns on my surface skin, and many further issues inside my lung than I had before treatment.Thankfully the unit was attached to the side/head of a bed, and was not an enclosed space.It was trivial for me to stand up and get off the bed after not a single person in the room reacted to me repeatedly saying the burning pain was too much to stand.At one point, I was convinced that one doctor was trying to harm me.I refused to lay back down on the bed and cooperate.
I told the doctor to lay there, take my vest, and have the tech give him the same dose.
He of course refused, despite arguing it was safe.If the doctor refuses to do something perfectly safe, yet wants to submit others to it, you know something is wrong.
I even had multiple x-ray doses over a 4 month period, where the doctor had zero (that he admitted to anyway) so one dose would be much less harmful to him than one more dose for me.I did start the process of a lawsuit, but the hospital insurance company wanted to settle out of court, and my lawyer strongly recommended taking it, as proving that the Therac machine did not live up to the manufacturer requirements would be an uphill battle that I probably would not win.If we only knew then what we know now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748721</id>
	<title>Human-computer interaction class?</title>
	<author>n5yat</author>
	<datestamp>1255552200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are making a big assumption that people creating human-computer interfaces have taken any classes about human-computer interfaces/interaction/etc. Therefore, they are ignorant of even the most basic advice on creating effective human-computer interfaces.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are making a big assumption that people creating human-computer interfaces have taken any classes about human-computer interfaces/interaction/etc .
Therefore , they are ignorant of even the most basic advice on creating effective human-computer interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are making a big assumption that people creating human-computer interfaces have taken any classes about human-computer interfaces/interaction/etc.
Therefore, they are ignorant of even the most basic advice on creating effective human-computer interfaces.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747761</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I couldn't agree more. Anyone who has ever worked with doctors knows that they are some of the most arrogant people on the planet. Sure, they're tasked with saving LIVES, and what could possibly be more important than that? However, they tend to fall short when it comes to common sense and constructive criticism. In their eyes, they've gone to school for 8+ years so they don't need anyone to tell them anything. In this case, it means they don't need some silly owner's manual to tell them how to administer treatment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I could n't agree more .
Anyone who has ever worked with doctors knows that they are some of the most arrogant people on the planet .
Sure , they 're tasked with saving LIVES , and what could possibly be more important than that ?
However , they tend to fall short when it comes to common sense and constructive criticism .
In their eyes , they 've gone to school for 8 + years so they do n't need anyone to tell them anything .
In this case , it means they do n't need some silly owner 's manual to tell them how to administer treatment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I couldn't agree more.
Anyone who has ever worked with doctors knows that they are some of the most arrogant people on the planet.
Sure, they're tasked with saving LIVES, and what could possibly be more important than that?
However, they tend to fall short when it comes to common sense and constructive criticism.
In their eyes, they've gone to school for 8+ years so they don't need anyone to tell them anything.
In this case, it means they don't need some silly owner's manual to tell them how to administer treatment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750517</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the machines default to a dangerous state on reset, they can be revised to prevent this from happening. So yes, this particular error can go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the machines default to a dangerous state on reset , they can be revised to prevent this from happening .
So yes , this particular error can go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the machines default to a dangerous state on reset, they can be revised to prevent this from happening.
So yes, this particular error can go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746711</id>
	<title>Don't be such a wuss</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1255543440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Little X-ray never killed anybody.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Little X-ray never killed anybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Little X-ray never killed anybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751637</id>
	<title>Re:Default setting...</title>
	<author>fluffy99</author>
	<datestamp>1255525620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Didn't RTFA.</p></div><p>Well that explains why your comment makes no sense.  The system was showing a correct dosage, but was delivering something different since they had been dorking with the protocol definitions.  In the Therac-25 case, the error was due to the operators using the program in an undocumented manner and the system incorrectly calculating the required exposures as a result.  Also the operator doesn't arbitrarily set a level.  He picks a specific protocol from a menu which already has the scanning pattern, timing, and power levels.  Don't forget that dosage is power x time, so a low power level run for too long is also a problem.</p><p>If you didn't bother reading TFA, please don't bother posting. Whatever twit modded you insightful should be banned as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did n't RTFA.Well that explains why your comment makes no sense .
The system was showing a correct dosage , but was delivering something different since they had been dorking with the protocol definitions .
In the Therac-25 case , the error was due to the operators using the program in an undocumented manner and the system incorrectly calculating the required exposures as a result .
Also the operator does n't arbitrarily set a level .
He picks a specific protocol from a menu which already has the scanning pattern , timing , and power levels .
Do n't forget that dosage is power x time , so a low power level run for too long is also a problem.If you did n't bother reading TFA , please do n't bother posting .
Whatever twit modded you insightful should be banned as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Didn't RTFA.Well that explains why your comment makes no sense.
The system was showing a correct dosage, but was delivering something different since they had been dorking with the protocol definitions.
In the Therac-25 case, the error was due to the operators using the program in an undocumented manner and the system incorrectly calculating the required exposures as a result.
Also the operator doesn't arbitrarily set a level.
He picks a specific protocol from a menu which already has the scanning pattern, timing, and power levels.
Don't forget that dosage is power x time, so a low power level run for too long is also a problem.If you didn't bother reading TFA, please don't bother posting.
Whatever twit modded you insightful should be banned as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746805</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Slipped\_Disk</author>
	<datestamp>1255543860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being in the medical field these days (though not in the nuclear medicine area) I can say that doctors are even less likely than CS geeks to RTFM.  It is always the engineer's responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a system can not cause harm to patients, doctors or technicians, even if used improperly.<br>
<br>
The fact that nuclear medicine equipment continues to ship without an absolutely paranoid level of hardware safety interlocks 20+ years after the Therac-25 incidents is appalling.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being in the medical field these days ( though not in the nuclear medicine area ) I can say that doctors are even less likely than CS geeks to RTFM .
It is always the engineer 's responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a system can not cause harm to patients , doctors or technicians , even if used improperly .
The fact that nuclear medicine equipment continues to ship without an absolutely paranoid level of hardware safety interlocks 20 + years after the Therac-25 incidents is appalling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being in the medical field these days (though not in the nuclear medicine area) I can say that doctors are even less likely than CS geeks to RTFM.
It is always the engineer's responsibility to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a system can not cause harm to patients, doctors or technicians, even if used improperly.
The fact that nuclear medicine equipment continues to ship without an absolutely paranoid level of hardware safety interlocks 20+ years after the Therac-25 incidents is appalling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749523</id>
	<title>Hardware Failsafe: Never Trust Software</title>
	<author>RonBurk</author>
	<datestamp>1255512540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's nothing creepier than showing up for your weekly radiation treatment just to find out there's a delay because they're "installing a Windows upgrade". When I asked the radiologist if there was any failsafe in the device, he assured me there was. When I asked if there was a radiation detector positioned behind the patient that was capable of shutting off the beam if it detected too much radiation, he said "no, nothing like that."</p><p>Medical radiation equipment should be designed with a secondary, independent piece of hardware capable of measuring pass-through radiation and shutting off the equipment. Doctors should demand such designs. Do you face much worse risks in your daily life? Sure. But your local Toyota dealer did not swear an oath to "first, do no harm."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's nothing creepier than showing up for your weekly radiation treatment just to find out there 's a delay because they 're " installing a Windows upgrade " .
When I asked the radiologist if there was any failsafe in the device , he assured me there was .
When I asked if there was a radiation detector positioned behind the patient that was capable of shutting off the beam if it detected too much radiation , he said " no , nothing like that .
" Medical radiation equipment should be designed with a secondary , independent piece of hardware capable of measuring pass-through radiation and shutting off the equipment .
Doctors should demand such designs .
Do you face much worse risks in your daily life ?
Sure. But your local Toyota dealer did not swear an oath to " first , do no harm .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's nothing creepier than showing up for your weekly radiation treatment just to find out there's a delay because they're "installing a Windows upgrade".
When I asked the radiologist if there was any failsafe in the device, he assured me there was.
When I asked if there was a radiation detector positioned behind the patient that was capable of shutting off the beam if it detected too much radiation, he said "no, nothing like that.
"Medical radiation equipment should be designed with a secondary, independent piece of hardware capable of measuring pass-through radiation and shutting off the equipment.
Doctors should demand such designs.
Do you face much worse risks in your daily life?
Sure. But your local Toyota dealer did not swear an oath to "first, do no harm.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746989</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>celticryan</author>
	<datestamp>1255544820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Re:<p><div class="quote"><p>100s of mSv range</p></div><p>There are portions of the world that have a very high natural background in the 200 mSv range so you are not quite right with your estimates.  In addition, you have to distinguish between whole body dose and localized dose.  It is not uncommon to see tumor doses in the 40-50 Sv range.
<br> <br>
The machines were set for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.5 Gy (for xrays 1 Gy = 1 Sv) and got 3-4 Gy.  A whole body dose of just above 4 Sv is a 50\% death in 3-6 weeks (with no medical intervention).  (remember that the CT was only to the brain).  They are definitely in some dangerous territory, but the article said the median age of the patients was 70.  Couple that with the fact that they already had a stroke and it is safe to conclude that long term effects are unlikely to matter.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Re : 100s of mSv rangeThere are portions of the world that have a very high natural background in the 200 mSv range so you are not quite right with your estimates .
In addition , you have to distinguish between whole body dose and localized dose .
It is not uncommon to see tumor doses in the 40-50 Sv range .
The machines were set for .5 Gy ( for xrays 1 Gy = 1 Sv ) and got 3-4 Gy .
A whole body dose of just above 4 Sv is a 50 \ % death in 3-6 weeks ( with no medical intervention ) .
( remember that the CT was only to the brain ) .
They are definitely in some dangerous territory , but the article said the median age of the patients was 70 .
Couple that with the fact that they already had a stroke and it is safe to conclude that long term effects are unlikely to matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Re:100s of mSv rangeThere are portions of the world that have a very high natural background in the 200 mSv range so you are not quite right with your estimates.
In addition, you have to distinguish between whole body dose and localized dose.
It is not uncommon to see tumor doses in the 40-50 Sv range.
The machines were set for .5 Gy (for xrays 1 Gy = 1 Sv) and got 3-4 Gy.
A whole body dose of just above 4 Sv is a 50\% death in 3-6 weeks (with no medical intervention).
(remember that the CT was only to the brain).
They are definitely in some dangerous territory, but the article said the median age of the patients was 70.
Couple that with the fact that they already had a stroke and it is safe to conclude that long term effects are unlikely to matter.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577</id>
	<title>No, there will always be risk</title>
	<author>e2d2</author>
	<datestamp>1255542840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I witness this constant chase of removing risk from the world it makes me wonder if it's delusion or just plain stupidity. No matter how hard you try there will always be risk involved in almost every action. Accept it and treat it rationally. I'm not saying to ignore it. Just to accept it as life. Life is brutal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I witness this constant chase of removing risk from the world it makes me wonder if it 's delusion or just plain stupidity .
No matter how hard you try there will always be risk involved in almost every action .
Accept it and treat it rationally .
I 'm not saying to ignore it .
Just to accept it as life .
Life is brutal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I witness this constant chase of removing risk from the world it makes me wonder if it's delusion or just plain stupidity.
No matter how hard you try there will always be risk involved in almost every action.
Accept it and treat it rationally.
I'm not saying to ignore it.
Just to accept it as life.
Life is brutal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750265</id>
	<title>Re:It's About Automation</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1255516080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the US, but in the UK the qualification you take to give CT scans these days is usually a degree - you'd be a diagnostic radiographer.  How much more training do you want?</p><p>The problem isn't the qualification, it's the change in protocol.  Someone thought it would be a good idea to override the machine's inbuilt safety cutout by resetting it part-way through the scan, proving that being highly qualified is no barrier to making dangerous decisions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the US , but in the UK the qualification you take to give CT scans these days is usually a degree - you 'd be a diagnostic radiographer .
How much more training do you want ? The problem is n't the qualification , it 's the change in protocol .
Someone thought it would be a good idea to override the machine 's inbuilt safety cutout by resetting it part-way through the scan , proving that being highly qualified is no barrier to making dangerous decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the US, but in the UK the qualification you take to give CT scans these days is usually a degree - you'd be a diagnostic radiographer.
How much more training do you want?The problem isn't the qualification, it's the change in protocol.
Someone thought it would be a good idea to override the machine's inbuilt safety cutout by resetting it part-way through the scan, proving that being highly qualified is no barrier to making dangerous decisions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752931</id>
	<title>Popcorn...</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1255535820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just stick a bag of microwave popcorn in there along with the patient. When the popping stops, pull the patient out immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just stick a bag of microwave popcorn in there along with the patient .
When the popping stops , pull the patient out immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just stick a bag of microwave popcorn in there along with the patient.
When the popping stops, pull the patient out immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746999</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe testing it afterwards?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255544880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good job not reading TFA.</p><p>In fact, the article notes that the Therac-25 ran successfully for some time before injuring the first patient.  One example cited that a machine operator who ran through the dosage screen too quickly caused a race and a resultant incorrect dosage.  How many times do you test your complete software system for overall race conditions like that?</p><p>On the other hand, you're right in guessing that there should have been (many) hardware interlocks on the machine to prevent dangerous or lethal doses from occurring, and that was the lesson in the article.</p><p>Slashdot editors: please provide a "Did not read TFA" button on posts so we can immediately mod those brainiacs that couldn't be bothered to read the original article from being marked "+5, Insightful."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good job not reading TFA.In fact , the article notes that the Therac-25 ran successfully for some time before injuring the first patient .
One example cited that a machine operator who ran through the dosage screen too quickly caused a race and a resultant incorrect dosage .
How many times do you test your complete software system for overall race conditions like that ? On the other hand , you 're right in guessing that there should have been ( many ) hardware interlocks on the machine to prevent dangerous or lethal doses from occurring , and that was the lesson in the article.Slashdot editors : please provide a " Did not read TFA " button on posts so we can immediately mod those brainiacs that could n't be bothered to read the original article from being marked " + 5 , Insightful .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good job not reading TFA.In fact, the article notes that the Therac-25 ran successfully for some time before injuring the first patient.
One example cited that a machine operator who ran through the dosage screen too quickly caused a race and a resultant incorrect dosage.
How many times do you test your complete software system for overall race conditions like that?On the other hand, you're right in guessing that there should have been (many) hardware interlocks on the machine to prevent dangerous or lethal doses from occurring, and that was the lesson in the article.Slashdot editors: please provide a "Did not read TFA" button on posts so we can immediately mod those brainiacs that couldn't be bothered to read the original article from being marked "+5, Insightful.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746907</id>
	<title>Re:HULK MAD!</title>
	<author>frito\_x</author>
	<datestamp>1255544400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate this "immediately moderate when you select an option" feature. meant to mod funny... slip of the mouse goes to overrated... there should be a go/ok button next to the list imho.</p><p>wasted 3 mod points... oh well...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate this " immediately moderate when you select an option " feature .
meant to mod funny... slip of the mouse goes to overrated... there should be a go/ok button next to the list imho.wasted 3 mod points... oh well.. .      </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate this "immediately moderate when you select an option" feature.
meant to mod funny... slip of the mouse goes to overrated... there should be a go/ok button next to the list imho.wasted 3 mod points... oh well...
     </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748697</id>
	<title>Re:8 times intended != fatal</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255552080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels.</i></p><p>People DIED. I'd say anything that can kill you is pretty dangerous.</p><p><i>It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people.</i></p><p>We were far more ignorant then, I don't even think they knew that radiation could cause cancer at the time.</p><p><i>For comparison remember more people are killed by vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights.</i></p><p>There are a hell of a lot more people using vending machines and Christmas lights than getting cat scans. You're comparing the number of mold spores in a moldy cherry with the number of mold spores in a moldy watermelon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels.People DIED .
I 'd say anything that can kill you is pretty dangerous.It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people.We were far more ignorant then , I do n't even think they knew that radiation could cause cancer at the time.For comparison remember more people are killed by vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights.There are a hell of a lot more people using vending machines and Christmas lights than getting cat scans .
You 're comparing the number of mold spores in a moldy cherry with the number of mold spores in a moldy watermelon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels.People DIED.
I'd say anything that can kill you is pretty dangerous.It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people.We were far more ignorant then, I don't even think they knew that radiation could cause cancer at the time.For comparison remember more people are killed by vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights.There are a hell of a lot more people using vending machines and Christmas lights than getting cat scans.
You're comparing the number of mold spores in a moldy cherry with the number of mold spores in a moldy watermelon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29755047</id>
	<title>Re:Add a dialog box...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255607640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That pops up for the operator to respond to....</p><p>Are you sure you want to kill this patient?</p><p>Yes No Retry</p></div><p>&gt;Yes No Retry<br><b>Yes to all</b><br>There, fixed that fo you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That pops up for the operator to respond to....Are you sure you want to kill this patient ? Yes No Retry &gt; Yes No RetryYes to allThere , fixed that fo you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That pops up for the operator to respond to....Are you sure you want to kill this patient?Yes No Retry&gt;Yes No RetryYes to allThere, fixed that fo you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746757</id>
	<title>Paul Graham On  CT Scan Err.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Simplicity takes effort-- genius, even. The average programmer seems to produce UI designs that are almost willfully bad. I was trying to use the stove at my mother's house a couple weeks ago. It was a new one, and instead of physical knobs it had buttons and an LED display. I tried pressing some buttons I thought would cause it to get hot, and you know what it said? "Err." Not even "Error." "Err." You can't just say "Err" to the user of a stove. You should design the UI so that errors are impossible. And the boneheads who designed this stove even had an example of such a UI to work from: the old one."</p><p>Yours In Elekrogorsk,<br>Kilgore Trout</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Simplicity takes effort-- genius , even .
The average programmer seems to produce UI designs that are almost willfully bad .
I was trying to use the stove at my mother 's house a couple weeks ago .
It was a new one , and instead of physical knobs it had buttons and an LED display .
I tried pressing some buttons I thought would cause it to get hot , and you know what it said ?
" Err. " Not even " Error .
" " Err .
" You ca n't just say " Err " to the user of a stove .
You should design the UI so that errors are impossible .
And the boneheads who designed this stove even had an example of such a UI to work from : the old one .
" Yours In Elekrogorsk,Kilgore Trout</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Simplicity takes effort-- genius, even.
The average programmer seems to produce UI designs that are almost willfully bad.
I was trying to use the stove at my mother's house a couple weeks ago.
It was a new one, and instead of physical knobs it had buttons and an LED display.
I tried pressing some buttons I thought would cause it to get hot, and you know what it said?
"Err." Not even "Error.
" "Err.
" You can't just say "Err" to the user of a stove.
You should design the UI so that errors are impossible.
And the boneheads who designed this stove even had an example of such a UI to work from: the old one.
"Yours In Elekrogorsk,Kilgore Trout</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747249</id>
	<title>Programmer Oopsie!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255545900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just a programming bug, it will be fixed in the next release.</p><p>Software is licensed and may include 'defects' and customers have no choice but to accept defects.</p><p>Maybe if these "software engineers" could be held liable for any defects, things would change.</p><p>But hey, they are just programmers, put the bug into twiki/bugtracker, and try and fix it in the next release.</p><p>Make sure all your easter eggs are working though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just a programming bug , it will be fixed in the next release.Software is licensed and may include 'defects ' and customers have no choice but to accept defects.Maybe if these " software engineers " could be held liable for any defects , things would change.But hey , they are just programmers , put the bug into twiki/bugtracker , and try and fix it in the next release.Make sure all your easter eggs are working though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just a programming bug, it will be fixed in the next release.Software is licensed and may include 'defects' and customers have no choice but to accept defects.Maybe if these "software engineers" could be held liable for any defects, things would change.But hey, they are just programmers, put the bug into twiki/bugtracker, and try and fix it in the next release.Make sure all your easter eggs are working though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764183</id>
	<title>Re:Feedback?</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1255610040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The system was mis-configured to generate too much X-ray energy. So any test that confirmed if the actual dose was the same as the configured dose would not have helped.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The system was mis-configured to generate too much X-ray energy .
So any test that confirmed if the actual dose was the same as the configured dose would not have helped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The system was mis-configured to generate too much X-ray energy.
So any test that confirmed if the actual dose was the same as the configured dose would not have helped.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764709</id>
	<title>Re:Feedback?</title>
	<author>WryCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1255614420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy?</i></p><p>This is already a requirement of 21CFR1020.33:</p><p>(2)Timers. (i) Means shall be provided to terminate the x-ray exposure automatically by either deenergizing the x-ray source or shuttering the x-ray beam in the event of equipment failure affecting data collection. Such termination shall occur within an interval that limits the total scan time to no more than 110 percent of its preset value through the use of either a backup timer or devices which monitor equipment function. A visible signal shall indicate when the x-ray exposure has been terminated through these means and manual resetting of the CT conditions of operation shall be required prior to the initiation of another scan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy ? This is already a requirement of 21CFR1020.33 : ( 2 ) Timers .
( i ) Means shall be provided to terminate the x-ray exposure automatically by either deenergizing the x-ray source or shuttering the x-ray beam in the event of equipment failure affecting data collection .
Such termination shall occur within an interval that limits the total scan time to no more than 110 percent of its preset value through the use of either a backup timer or devices which monitor equipment function .
A visible signal shall indicate when the x-ray exposure has been terminated through these means and manual resetting of the CT conditions of operation shall be required prior to the initiation of another scan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why not require that scanners incorporate an independent detector that measures the amount X-ray energy?This is already a requirement of 21CFR1020.33:(2)Timers.
(i) Means shall be provided to terminate the x-ray exposure automatically by either deenergizing the x-ray source or shuttering the x-ray beam in the event of equipment failure affecting data collection.
Such termination shall occur within an interval that limits the total scan time to no more than 110 percent of its preset value through the use of either a backup timer or devices which monitor equipment function.
A visible signal shall indicate when the x-ray exposure has been terminated through these means and manual resetting of the CT conditions of operation shall be required prior to the initiation of another scan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748073</id>
	<title>Set a hard limit?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255549500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously... why cant they just set a limit on these, and make it a hardware limit not a software limit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously... why cant they just set a limit on these , and make it a hardware limit not a software limit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously... why cant they just set a limit on these, and make it a hardware limit not a software limit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749947</id>
	<title>Why use CT so much?</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1255514580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CT always bugged me.  You're bombarding the patient with ionizing radiation, and much more than a typical X-ray.  Sometimes, even going so far as injecting radioactive elements into a patient's blood to improve contrast in your images.</p><p>Yet the CT scanner is the first 3D imager they go for.  Shouldn't MRI be the default option if the patients don't have magnetic implants or pacemakers?  What does a CT get that an MRI can't that justifies making it the default option?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CT always bugged me .
You 're bombarding the patient with ionizing radiation , and much more than a typical X-ray .
Sometimes , even going so far as injecting radioactive elements into a patient 's blood to improve contrast in your images.Yet the CT scanner is the first 3D imager they go for .
Should n't MRI be the default option if the patients do n't have magnetic implants or pacemakers ?
What does a CT get that an MRI ca n't that justifies making it the default option ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CT always bugged me.
You're bombarding the patient with ionizing radiation, and much more than a typical X-ray.
Sometimes, even going so far as injecting radioactive elements into a patient's blood to improve contrast in your images.Yet the CT scanner is the first 3D imager they go for.
Shouldn't MRI be the default option if the patients don't have magnetic implants or pacemakers?
What does a CT get that an MRI can't that justifies making it the default option?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747235</id>
	<title>Re:Will errors ever go away?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1255545840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>As long as people are involved in some way, no.</p></div><p>Indeed. The problem here is that whenever you have to communicate something, there's no way to be 100\% sure that 100\% of your users will see what you intended, in the way that you intended it.  You can explain everything perfectly clearly and concisely - but because humans don't read minds, all words and visual cues are subject to interpretation by indviduals.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>As long as people are involved in some way , no.Indeed .
The problem here is that whenever you have to communicate something , there 's no way to be 100 \ % sure that 100 \ % of your users will see what you intended , in the way that you intended it .
You can explain everything perfectly clearly and concisely - but because humans do n't read minds , all words and visual cues are subject to interpretation by indviduals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As long as people are involved in some way, no.Indeed.
The problem here is that whenever you have to communicate something, there's no way to be 100\% sure that 100\% of your users will see what you intended, in the way that you intended it.
You can explain everything perfectly clearly and concisely - but because humans don't read minds, all words and visual cues are subject to interpretation by indviduals.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746619</id>
	<title>uncommittable error?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255543080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?"</p><p>NO!</p><p>Make something idiot proof, and they invent a better idiot!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable ?
" NO ! Make something idiot proof , and they invent a better idiot !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Will we ever learn enough to make these errors truly uncommittable?
"NO!Make something idiot proof, and they invent a better idiot!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629</id>
	<title>8 times intended != fatal</title>
	<author>140Mandak262Jamuna</author>
	<datestamp>1255543140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels. That too just 200 people. Come on get some perspectives ok? It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people. And it was not even pulsed. Continuous, high level radiation. <p>

For comparison remember more people are killed by  vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels .
That too just 200 people .
Come on get some perspectives ok ?
It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people .
And it was not even pulsed .
Continuous , high level radiation .
For comparison remember more people are killed by vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you all get worked up realize that 8 times the intended dose does not mean it was over the exposure limit or dangerous levels.
That too just 200 people.
Come on get some perspectives ok?
It was not long ago we were permitting shoe salesmen to Xray the foot to check the fit of shoes on people.
And it was not even pulsed.
Continuous, high level radiation.
For comparison remember more people are killed by  vending machines and by falling off the roof putting up the christmas lights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750963</id>
	<title>Re:Add a dialog box...</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255520220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you are activating the machine would you like help:</p><p>--Killing the patient?<br>--overdosing the patient?<br>--banging the hot nurse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you are activating the machine would you like help : --Killing the patient ? --overdosing the patient ? --banging the hot nurse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you are activating the machine would you like help:--Killing the patient?--overdosing the patient?--banging the hot nurse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617</id>
	<title>Medical Staff were a big part of the problem</title>
	<author>CheddarHead</author>
	<datestamp>1255543080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem.  Patients complained of being burned, but their complaints were essentially ignored.  Meanwhile, they were sent back for multiple treatments.  Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it 's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem .
Patients complained of being burned , but their complaints were essentially ignored .
Meanwhile , they were sent back for multiple treatments .
Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Along with the usability issues with the design of the Therac-25 it's obvious that the attitude of the medical staff contributed greatly to the problem.
Patients complained of being burned, but their complaints were essentially ignored.
Meanwhile, they were sent back for multiple treatments.
Overwhelming evidence of radiation burns was ignored or given only cursory investigation because medical personal or manufacturer reps claimed that it was impossible for the Therac-25 to be responsible for the burns.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747505</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255547040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CT scans are about the most radiation you get short of radiation treatments.  They use as much radiation as like 10 chest xrays.</p><p>It can actually become an issue if someone needs radiation therapy ('chemo') -- there is a limit to the amount of radiation docs can give people, so if they have a CT scan it lowers the amount they can use to treat cancer/etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CT scans are about the most radiation you get short of radiation treatments .
They use as much radiation as like 10 chest xrays.It can actually become an issue if someone needs radiation therapy ( 'chemo ' ) -- there is a limit to the amount of radiation docs can give people , so if they have a CT scan it lowers the amount they can use to treat cancer/etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CT scans are about the most radiation you get short of radiation treatments.
They use as much radiation as like 10 chest xrays.It can actually become an issue if someone needs radiation therapy ('chemo') -- there is a limit to the amount of radiation docs can give people, so if they have a CT scan it lowers the amount they can use to treat cancer/etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750887</id>
	<title>Re:Silver lining</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1255519740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time I have received an X-Ray the doctors and technicians made me aware of the risks.</p><p>"They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide"<br>no, they aren't considered harmless, they are considered routine.</p><p>Mod -1 clueless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time I have received an X-Ray the doctors and technicians made me aware of the risks .
" They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide " no , they are n't considered harmless , they are considered routine.Mod -1 clueless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time I have received an X-Ray the doctors and technicians made me aware of the risks.
"They are largely viewed as harmless given the excellent volume of anatomical information they provide"no, they aren't considered harmless, they are considered routine.Mod -1 clueless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747937</id>
	<title>Re:Not the engineers fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255548900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speaking from experience, RTFM is something that will not happen.  In the US at least, Doctors don't have the time for this and rely on someone else to give them last minute crash course training as needed.<br>I, as a hospital sysadmin, have been an anesthesiologist on a live patient because the doctor forgot how.  The usual try-stuff-and-see-what happens experimentation with an unfamiliar system is a terrifying experience when you know that you could kill someone with a mistake, and hospital time constraints don't allow for anyone to RTFM at the last minute.<br>Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens on a regular basis (at least at the hospital where I worked) and is the primary reason I will never again work in health care.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking from experience , RTFM is something that will not happen .
In the US at least , Doctors do n't have the time for this and rely on someone else to give them last minute crash course training as needed.I , as a hospital sysadmin , have been an anesthesiologist on a live patient because the doctor forgot how .
The usual try-stuff-and-see-what happens experimentation with an unfamiliar system is a terrifying experience when you know that you could kill someone with a mistake , and hospital time constraints do n't allow for anyone to RTFM at the last minute.Unfortunately , this sort of thing happens on a regular basis ( at least at the hospital where I worked ) and is the primary reason I will never again work in health care .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking from experience, RTFM is something that will not happen.
In the US at least, Doctors don't have the time for this and rely on someone else to give them last minute crash course training as needed.I, as a hospital sysadmin, have been an anesthesiologist on a live patient because the doctor forgot how.
The usual try-stuff-and-see-what happens experimentation with an unfamiliar system is a terrifying experience when you know that you could kill someone with a mistake, and hospital time constraints don't allow for anyone to RTFM at the last minute.Unfortunately, this sort of thing happens on a regular basis (at least at the hospital where I worked) and is the primary reason I will never again work in health care.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747005</id>
	<title>Re:Pretty narrow margin</title>
	<author>Amouth</author>
	<datestamp>1255544880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but CT scan's aren't "typical" - you get xray'ed couple times a year so they are very low poweed, but a CT scan?? i think my last was? i might have had one 25 years ago when they cut my head open, for that they pump up the power to get it right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but CT scan 's are n't " typical " - you get xray'ed couple times a year so they are very low poweed , but a CT scan ? ?
i think my last was ?
i might have had one 25 years ago when they cut my head open , for that they pump up the power to get it right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but CT scan's aren't "typical" - you get xray'ed couple times a year so they are very low poweed, but a CT scan??
i think my last was?
i might have had one 25 years ago when they cut my head open, for that they pump up the power to get it right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751501</id>
	<title>Re:Feedback?</title>
	<author>chihowa</author>
	<datestamp>1255524360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they're already changing the protocols and not testing them before using them, what's to say they don't just defeat the hardware interlock by putting a piece of lead foil over it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they 're already changing the protocols and not testing them before using them , what 's to say they do n't just defeat the hardware interlock by putting a piece of lead foil over it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they're already changing the protocols and not testing them before using them, what's to say they don't just defeat the hardware interlock by putting a piece of lead foil over it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29755047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29757249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748055
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748007
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747929
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746853
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29775545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29758443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747505
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746793
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748815
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29760455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746681
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_1614245_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748721
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29760455
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746589
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746757
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746793
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746441
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747467
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29775545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747049
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751255
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749985
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29758443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746559
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747109
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748035
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29754849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29755047
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29757249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748681
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747761
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748055
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748007
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746963
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29750737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746617
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746731
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747929
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29747841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29749383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29746789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29752525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29764183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29751501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_1614245.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_1614245.29748935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
