Re: rf burns

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "davep by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <davep-at-quik-dot-com>

 
> Mark: flame burns are on the surface then go in. Rf burns are from bone out.
> They are deep tissue burns. I had one in my finger that burned a small black
> trail through the marrow of the bone. That was real long healing, it drained
> over a mounth and took longer to heal.

	I suspect it varies with the kind of RF burns: freq, power,
	and how applied.  An RF 'arc', if it flashes thru to bone,
	might well act as described.  A lower power one, or one applied
	by an induction coil, might stay more surface bound.
 
> > From: "Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>
> > Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 08:14:35 -0700
> 
> > Subject: rf burns

> > Hi Everyone,

> > Just wondering why rf burns take so long to heal compared to normal burns.
> > Over the years I've had a few minor rf burns off my sstc and they
> > definitely do take a while to heal.

> > I think I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that rf burns take a
> > long time to heal because the rf seals off the entire burn (including under
> > the skin) so that blood or whatever cannot get to the burn to heal it. A
> > normal burn is only on the top of the skin so that blood can get underneath
> > to start the healing process.

> > Is the above true? I've tried doing a search on yahoo for rf burns but I
> > have not come up with anything that talks about them in detail.

	I'm no medical expert, i believe it is correct.  There used to
	be use of 'rf cauterization', to seal tissue during, or after
	surgery:  rf applied from an RF source to the tissue.  I'm
	REAL fuzzy on details, some google work on 'cauterize
	cauterization' etc would be instructive...

	I THINK this was vi an RF arc from two closely spaced
	electrodes, which would not tend to 'go to the bone'.

	best
	dwp
	best
	dwp