Talk:Cauterization

I vote the first order of business be to clear up when and where this was practiced in cases where we would not cauterize now. It seems to me that people don't get nasal cauterizations in America in 2006 because they have too many nosebleeds, so we need to explain better when we used this and why we stopped?66.41.66.213 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Maby you stoped useing cauterization to stop nosebleeds in america but that dosent mean the whole world hase, I use Silver Nitrate myself to cauterise in the case of exsessive nosebleeds..

p.s-ive JUST had cautery done with silver nitrate to recfity a tear within my nose and to stop the nosebleeds. silvernitrate is used most often

Factual accuracy

Electrocautery and Electrosurgery are not the same. No current is passed through tissue in electrocautery, while it is in electrosurgery. So, this entire article is factually wrong. Wikindian 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikindian is right about Electrocautery and electrosurgery not being the same. His/her second statement is technically wrong. Although it is not meant to, current does pass through the patient in electrocautery as the machine-patient curcuit is not isolated from ground. Electrosurgery involves HF diathermy machines which isolate the machine-patient circuit from ground, allowing current to flow through the patient but not to ground.--MechaZawa 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that there is no such thing as "monothermy", diathermy is actually a greek word meaning "heating through".--MechaZawa 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"The different methods of cauterization include burning the affected area with acid, hot metal, lasers, or silver nitrate. Such a procedure is naturally quite painful." This... isn't fantastically accurate. I had this done twice (silver nitrate) and it really didn't hurt much at all. Unpleasant, yes, but not "quite painful" by a long shot. --Shardz (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

misplaced links

The links for Diathermy and Singe in the "Religious Beliefs" section are not religious in nature. They seem like they belong in a "See Also" section. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Agreed, recommended addition of "See Also" title. 86.25.252.242 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Already done! 76.21.37.87 (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology, medicine and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in December 2007 and 2 more edits in June 2007. Tobby72 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)