[Histonet] Adhesive cover for microscope state.

[Lester Raff MD via Histonet]

Hello All:

Years ago I had a white adhesive plastic cover on my microscope stage that kept 
the stage smooth. I am looking for a similar product but having no luck with an 
internet search. Does anyone have any leads on this?

Thanks,


Lester J. Raff, MD MBA
UroPartners
Medical Director Of Laboratory
2225 Enterprise Dr. Suite 2511
Westchester, Il 60154
Tel: 708-486-0076
Fax: 708-492-0203

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] KOH softener to "decalcify" bone?

[Rene J Buesa via Histonet]

EDTA can be used to decalcify delicate bones, such as bona marrow core 
biopsies.KOH is used to soften keratin (such as in toe nails) but is totally 
ineffective for decalcification.René 

On Monday, May 8, 2017 2:32 PM, Dorothy Hu via Histonet 
 wrote:
 

 I know someone used KOH with EDTA together to decalcify bone.
It is worthwhile to try KOH only to soft bone and kept dynamic labeling.
If anyone had tried successfully, please let us know.
Thanks.


>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Fabric softener to "decalcify" bone? (Angela Lamberth)
>    2. Re: Fabric softener to "decalcify" bone? - Downy has      formic
>      acid?? (Angela Lamberth)
>
>
>
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet


   
___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

Re: [Histonet] Histonet Digest, Vol 162, Issue 6

[Steve McClain via Histonet]

Olympus microscopes win in my experience.

You can't go wrong with any of the 3 major manufacturers. Modern scopes all 
have have better optics than what we trained on.  I place a high priority on 
durability and in my experience with Nikon and Olympus, Olympus has 
consistently shown better overall quality and durability and wins hands down.


Why?  In my personal experience, in scopes getting used 8-10 hours a day, and 
multiple users, Olympus survives better in terms of rubber parts such as ocular 
cups and the ring around the objective turret which failed on both Nikons. In 
other words, where the rubber meets the road ( or the pathologist touching the 
rubber), both Nikons suffered.


During my first 10 years, I used Nikon scopes exclusively, and I still own one 
Nikon scope (albeit stored in a cabinet). After 2-4 years both stages wore out 
and those rubber parts needed replacing.  I purchased  3 different digital 
cameras in my first 5 years of slide imaging (Polaroid and Spot) and 2 
different Nikon scopes 400 and e600.


But in my own private lab experience Olympus is clearly more durable. I wore 
out 1 stage and wore out 1 motorized microscope head in 14 years of rigorous 
daily use since changing to Olympus in 2004. That's it. 3 pathologists 3 
scopes, 100,000 slides a year. 2 repairs* We rely on our microscopes to work to 
a greater degree than most labs because we

IMAGE EVERY SPECIMEN.  Having a scope down or having suboptimal  performance 
inevitably shows up in the images.


Olympus scopes BX 61 BX41 with digital cameras DP70 DP71 have held up really 
well.  3 student grade scopes in the dirty lab environ at each microtome 
cutting station, used for immediate wet slide inspection and KOH exams, have 
held up well. Perhaps most surprisingly, both Olympus digital camera models 
(surprisingly because they are now 12-14 years old) still produce great slide 
images and remain in daily use.  The scopes likewise.


If you are buying a scope to be replaced every 3 years, you may see little 
difference.  But if you plan to use for 3-10 years with little maintenance 
aside from cleaning, odds favor Olympus.


Steve A. McClain, MD

*PS truth be told I also left the UV lamp on for a week 240 hours and burned up 
the UV lamp housing and had to replace that. Adding of course a $12 darkroom 
timer to prevent that accident from repeating.


On May 8, 2017, at 13:09, 
"histonet-requ...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
 
mailto:histonet-requ...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu>>
 wrote:


Subject: [Histonet] Microscope selection

Message-ID:

   
mailto:CAAMyTv_L4eKAHMTTc=CAVjX=urr1qvgddxd0wns0cjmkhhd...@mail.gmail.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hello to all

Would like to have some advice from expert from the field of pathology on

microscope selection

Which one would you select as a manufacturer for microscopes


1- Olympus

2- Nikon

3- Leica

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet

[Histonet] Fwd: Histonet Digest, Vol 162, Issue 6 micrcroscopes

[Steve McClain via Histonet]

Olympus microscopes win in my experience.

You can't go wrong with any of the 3 major manufacturers. Modern scopes all 
have have better optics than what we trained on.  I place a high priority on 
durability and in my experience with Nikon and Olympus, Olympus has 
consistently shown better overall quality and durability and wins hands down.


Why?  In my personal experience, in scopes getting used 8-10 hours a day, and 
multiple users, Olympus survives better in terms of rubber parts such as ocular 
cups and the ring around the objective turret which failed on both Nikons. In 
other words, where the rubber meets the road ( or the pathologist touching the 
rubber), both Nikons suffered.


During my first 10 years, I used Nikon scopes exclusively, and I still own one 
Nikon scope (albeit in storage). After 2-4 years both stages wore out and those 
rubber parts needed replacing.  I purchased  3 different digital cameras in my 
first 5 years of slide imaging (Polaroid and Spot) and 2 different Nikon scopes 
400 and e600.


But in my own private lab experience Olympus is clearly more durable. I wore 
out 1 stage and wore out 1 motorized microscope head in 14 years of rigorous 
daily use since changing to Olympus in 2004. That's it. 3 pathologists 3 
scopes, 100,000 slides a year. 2 repairs* We rely on our microscopes to work to 
a greater degree than most labs because we

IMAGE EVERY SPECIMEN.  Having a scope down or having suboptimal  performance 
inevitably shows up in the images.


Olympus scopes BX 61 BX41 with digital cameras DP70 DP71 have held up really 
well.  3 student grade scopes in the dirty lab environ at each microtome 
cutting station, used for immediate wet slide inspection and KOH exams, have 
held up well. Perhaps most surprisingly, both Olympus digital camera models 
(surprisingly because they are now 12-14 years old) still produce great slide 
images and remain in daily use.  The scopes likewise.


If you are buying a scope to be replaced every 3 years, you may see little 
difference.  But if you plan to use for 3-10 years with little maintenance 
aside from cleaning, odds favor Olympus.


Steve A. McClain, MD

*PS truth be told I also left the UV lamp on for a week 240 hours and burned up 
the UV lamp housing and had to replace that. Adding of course a $12 darkroom 
timer to prevent that accident from repeating.


On May 8, 2017, at 13:09, 
"histonet-requ...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu"
 
mailto:histonet-requ...@lists.utsouthwestern.edu>>
 wrote:


Subject: [Histonet] Microscope selection

Message-ID:

   
mailto:CAAMyTv_L4eKAHMTTc=CAVjX=urr1qvgddxd0wns0cjmkhhd...@mail.gmail.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hello to all

Would like to have some advice from expert from the field of pathology on

microscope selection

Which one would you select as a manufacturer for microscopes


1- Olympus

2- Nikon

3- Leica

___
Histonet mailing list
Histonet@lists.utsouthwestern.edu
http://lists.utsouthwestern.edu/mailman/listinfo/histonet