MuhnYourDog t1_iycfrll wrote
"Thirty-six percent of all foot radiographs had identifiable accessory bones."
Did you actually read the article? It's based on "abormal" radiolographic (x-ray) results from podiatrists and ER foot injury referrals that may show signs of accessory bones.
The article is about improving x-rays on human feet in particular instances, after a referral, not "for millennia, people couldn't count".
gedaliyah OP t1_iyd8w09 wrote
Okay, here is a recent study that says it's not a third of people but actually closer to 1/5
Either way it turns out that the 206 thing is not nearly as constant as we are generally taught
MuhnYourDog t1_iyd9xu8 wrote
The paper is titled "Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects".
I stand by my original point.
gedaliyah OP t1_iydc09d wrote
Now you are just being obstinate. The abstract explicitly states that the purpose of the study is to determine the incidence in the adult population.
MuhnYourDog t1_iydf5h2 wrote
>Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects
Are we done, or d'ye want to continue the exposition of your idiocyidiocy?
bougienative t1_iydks9y wrote
He offered a very valid counterpoint when he brought up the purpose of said article, you just repeated the name of the article again. So it's more if you are done lol.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments