"Take that Calgary Puck!" — SN960 and Calgary sports media discussion

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’ve always wondered about this. Radon mitigation is expensive, but if it’s such a big deal, wouldn’t it be a pretty widely know issue and talked about outside of the companies that do Radon mitigation?

Mostly curious. In conjunction with the other garbage advertised on 960 I’ve always assumed it’s much ado about nothing.

I think there used to be a thread about it in the OT forum. It's an issue if the concentration is high enough.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I think there used to be a thread about it in the OT forum. It's an issue if the concentration is high enough.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...ighlight=radon


Post #6, #64 and #67 I posted some of the doubts surrounding the radon scare.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hes

Its not about the side effects it is about the False positives. It has a false positive rate of like 33% . It also has too high of a False negative (missed diagnosis)..

https://www.theprostatecentre.com/pr...-with-the-psa/\

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3392481/

A PSA test does not give you a diagnosis, so declaring false positives and false negatives is a misnomer. It is an indicator which needs to be evaluated in consultation with a urologist. If you are a male aged 40 or over, it is asinine not having a physical every year and a PSA test done as part of your blood work.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

If you are a male aged 40 or over, it is asinine not having a physical every year and a PSA test done as part of your blood work.

https://canadiantaskforce.ca/canadia...ostate-cancer/

For men younger than 55 years of age and 70 years of age and older, CTFPHC strongly recommends against screening for prostate cancer with the PSA test. There is no evidence that screening with PSA tests reduces mortality, whereas there is evidence of harms.


For men aged 55–69 years of age the CTFPHC does not recommend screening for prostate cancer with the PSA test. There is inconsistent evidence of small potential benefit of screening, and evidence of harms. This recommendation places a relatively low value on a small potential absolute decrease in prostate cancer mortality, and reflects concerns with false positives results, unnecessary biopsies, overdiagnosis of prostate cancer, and the harms associated with unnecessary treatments

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

A PSA test does not give you a diagnosis, so declaring false positives and false negatives is a misnomer. It is an indicator which needs to be evaluated in consultation with a urologist. If you are a male aged 40 or over, it is asinine not having a physical every year and a PSA test done as part of your blood work.

False positive or false negative has nothing to do with a diagnosis. The concern with PSA testing is that it was leading to unnecessary biopsy's. The second link I posted stated that clinically PSA testing should be used more to assess how treatment is working.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hes

False positive or false negative has nothing to do with a diagnosis. The concern with PSA testing is that it was leading to unnecessary biopsy's. The second link I posted stated that clinically PSA testing should be used more to assess how treatment is working.

As I have said, a PSA score is but one factor evaluating need for further tests. A high PSA score is just that, it is a high PSA score. It is not a cancer diagnosis and should not be viewed as such.

The decision to proceed with a biopsy or MRI testing is not based solely on a PSA score. Any oncologist or urologist will tell you this and there are many steps they will take you through through before you get to that point, depending on your facts and circumstances.

But knowing your PSA score is most certainly a relevant piece of information in deciding your course of action.

Now if you have already determined that you have no interest in treating prostate cancer if present, then skip the PSA.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

As I have said, a PSA score is but one factor evaluating need for further tests. A high PSA score is just that, it is a high PSA score. It is not a cancer diagnosis and should not be viewed as such.

The decision to proceed with a biopsy or MRI testing is not based solely on a PSA score. Any oncologist or urologist will tell you this and there are many steps they will take you through through before you get to that point, depending on your facts and circumstances.

But knowing your PSA score is most certainly a relevant piece of information in deciding your course of action.

Now if you have already determined that you have no interest in treating prostate cancer if present, then skip the PSA.

Read the link Troutman posted above. It outlines things better than I ever could.

Basically, It is not proven to be clinically relevant and in certain populations may actually show harm.

[transplant99]

So about fan960?

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Hes

Read the link Troutman posted above. It outlines things better than I ever could.

Basically, It is not proven to be clinically relevant and in certain populations may actually show harm.

I read the links and even more interesting is speaking to actual doctors.

Why would you not want to know your PSA score?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So about fan960?

I've been listening to Rome for 15 years and if he's really gone for good, I'm actually going to be disappointed. Even if it's not the same as it once was, it's always been comforting to hear Lust for Life at 10am.

When I was in high school, I could tell to within two or three minutes what the time was solely based on listening to a single segment of Rome between 10-1.

It's one thing to make a change if you have something better lined up, but nobody on the Fan is a better broadcaster than Jim Rome. I like everyone who's currently on the roster, but I don't need to hear more of them at the expense of the only show that provides a tonal shift in 12 hours of broadcast time.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I read the links and even more interesting is speaking to actual doctors.

Why would you not want to know your PSA score?

Actually, what’s more interesting than the opinion of a doctor here or a doctor there, are studies published in medical journals. The links provided should give you better insight into the situation as a whole, not tainted by opinion. Unfortunately, not all doctors are great doctors, and not all doctors avoid uneccesary tests and treatments.

The way I see it, a PSA test results in three main things:
Most likely: You’re fine
Less likely: You may not be fine, and undergo tests that prove to be uneccesary, as you are fine
Least likely: You may not be fine, and undergo tests that reveal cancer

Saying every guy over 40 should get a yearly PSA test goes against the data, and is more likely to do harm than good.

[PugnaciousIntern]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I am a huge proponent of PSA testing for men. It is a simple blood test that provides you with information that should be used in consultation with your doctor. There are zero side effects from a PSA blood test. None at all. Unless you consider warring a bandaid for a few minutes a side effect.

Unfortunately there are several side effects from prostate cancer screening, and it is reckless to present a screening test to a patient as an isolated test without implications based on the results. I will admit that many of those risks didn't seem 'real' until I saw enough patients suffer from them. It's certainly reasonable to consider screening, but I cringe when I see it presented as a zero-risk option.

I would refer you to a meta-analysis on this topic:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr.../epdf/abstract

Plain Language Summary:

"Prostate cancer is one of the most prevalent forms of cancer in men worldwide. Screening for prostate cancer implies that diagnostic tests be performed in the absence of any symptoms or indications of disease. These tests include the digital rectal examination (DRE), the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) guided biopsy. Screening aims to identify cancers at an early and treatable stage, therefore increasing the chances of successful treatment while also improving a patient's future quality of life. This review identified five relevant studies, comprised of 341,342 participants in total. Two of the studies were assessed to be of low risk of bias, whilst the remaining three had more substantive methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis of all five included studies demonstrated no statistically significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.17). Meta-analysis of the two low risk of bias studies indicated no significant reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.30). Only one study included in this review (ERSPC) reported a significant 21% relative reduction (95% CI 31% to 8%) in prostate cancer-specific mortality in a pre-specified subgroup of men. These results were primarily driven by two countries within the ERSPC study that had very high prostate cancer mortality rates and unusually large reduction estimates. Among men aged 55 to 69 years in the ERSPC study, the study authors reported that 1055 men would need to be screened to prevent one additional death from prostate cancer during a median follow-up duration of 11 years. Harms included overdiagnosis and harms associated with overtreatment, including false-positive results for the PSA test, infection, bleeding, and pain associated with subsequent biopsy."

Sorry for contributing to the derailment of this thread.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I read the links and even more interesting is speaking to actual doctors.

Why would you not want to know your PSA score?

Well actual doctors I know don’t recommend it.

It has high false positives and high false negatives. So it has a high chance of needlessly worrying me/getting an unnecessary procedure done or worst than that giving me a false negative and I don’t worry about anything.

PSA score would be valuable if I had prostate cancer and wanted to see how treatment was going maybe.

[Northendzone]

from what i can tell from this thread is that:
- the fan morning show sucks
- the afternoon shows sucks
- the ads suck
- kirsch is not responsive enough to listener complaints

did i miss anything else?

[Robbob]

people just hate stuff

[Moneyhands23]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

from what i can tell from this thread is that:
- the fan morning show sucks
- the afternoon shows sucks
- the ads suck
- kirsch is not responsive enough to listener complaints

did i miss anything else?

And despite all these things it seems just about everyone listens to both the morning and afternoon shows! Lol

[Madman]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

from what i can tell from this thread is that:
- the fan morning show sucks
- the afternoon shows sucks
- the ads suck
- kirsch is not responsive enough to listener complaints

did i miss anything else?

For me, when Boomer and Warrener are there, the Morning Show is great and exactly what I want as a listener from 6-9am.

When Boomer isn't there, it's 100% brutal and totally un-listenable. Klein refuses to address his extreme use of long drawn out Ummmms, and then Nault attempts to take things over from everyone else that is being heard on the radio, (host, guest, whoever).

[Hot_Flatus]

The afternoon show is so much better with Pinder having moved in the last few months. They actually have some unique segments and even make a point of talking HEAT and junior prospects regularly. Aside from that, I would say the morning show is ok but could certainly use a re-vamp as much of what they do is getting stale (Warrener has become a pretty good contributor as an ex player). A little less Boomer centric would go a long way.

Considering what places like Edmonton have, I think the Calgary radio scene is not worth complaining about.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So about fan960?

It’s getting a PSA test while lying down on a MyPillow in a radon mitigated office.

[-TC-]

I used to listen constantly in the AM (I'm up early and work from home a lot) but, for me, there's far too much NFL content. I'm not a LaCanfora fan, so I usually turn it off and listen to the news while he's on... same with all the fantasy football stuff, CFL, etc. I probably listen half as much as I used to.

The morning show was better when Pinder was part of it, too.