<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sketch Book 36: Heart</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.gordaen.com/2009/04/16/sketch-book-36-heart/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2009/04/16/sketch-book-36-heart/</link>
	<description>Ramblings about art, education, culture and a lot more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 10:04:48 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ian Clifton</title>
		<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2009/04/16/sketch-book-36-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-110500</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Clifton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:55:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.gordaen.com/?p=796#comment-110500</guid>
		<description>I was recently talking to someone about hearts and started to think about how much they do and how little we acknowledge them until something goes wrong.  It&#039;s amazing how much medical science has advanced and yet how limited it is in some ways.  I still think it&#039;s interesting that we have to take so much blood to check for various infections, imbalances, etc., yet we can do many surgeries with no more damage than what a needle would cause.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was recently talking to someone about hearts and started to think about how much they do and how little we acknowledge them until something goes wrong.  It&#8217;s amazing how much medical science has advanced and yet how limited it is in some ways.  I still think it&#8217;s interesting that we have to take so much blood to check for various infections, imbalances, etc., yet we can do many surgeries with no more damage than what a needle would cause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Stone</title>
		<link>http://blog.gordaen.com/2009/04/16/sketch-book-36-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-110498</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Stone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.gordaen.com/?p=796#comment-110498</guid>
		<description>Ian,

I think you have gone about this heart sketch the right way. There are the abstract versions, e.g. valentine cards. And there are realistic versions, photographs, scans, etc.

But the truth is that every heart is different and the real heart in the chest does not line up all that well with the standard versions, even actual photographs.

Back in 1998 when the surgeon found that my left descending artery was more than 99 percent blocked, he also found that my body had made its own bypass so nothing further was needed at that time.

In 1994 my cardiologist decided a bypass would be good because things were working not quite up to 100 percent so that each time there was critical stress there would be a little degrading because not all of the heart would get what it needed. This would over time become worse and worse.

So I had that new minimally invasive cardiac artery bypass surgery... robotic arms and cameras. The surgeon didn&#039;t even put bandages over the incision points. He said that they had moved my heart closer to the center of my body during the surgery. It was something new they were trying. When they are not splitting your chest open, they can spend more time deciding exactly what to do new. They used the mammary gland artery. Of course I think you only have two of those.

Keep up the good work, Ian.

Robert</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian,</p>
<p>I think you have gone about this heart sketch the right way. There are the abstract versions, e.g. valentine cards. And there are realistic versions, photographs, scans, etc.</p>
<p>But the truth is that every heart is different and the real heart in the chest does not line up all that well with the standard versions, even actual photographs.</p>
<p>Back in 1998 when the surgeon found that my left descending artery was more than 99 percent blocked, he also found that my body had made its own bypass so nothing further was needed at that time.</p>
<p>In 1994 my cardiologist decided a bypass would be good because things were working not quite up to 100 percent so that each time there was critical stress there would be a little degrading because not all of the heart would get what it needed. This would over time become worse and worse.</p>
<p>So I had that new minimally invasive cardiac artery bypass surgery&#8230; robotic arms and cameras. The surgeon didn&#8217;t even put bandages over the incision points. He said that they had moved my heart closer to the center of my body during the surgery. It was something new they were trying. When they are not splitting your chest open, they can spend more time deciding exactly what to do new. They used the mammary gland artery. Of course I think you only have two of those.</p>
<p>Keep up the good work, Ian.</p>
<p>Robert</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
