To: Road Walker who wrote (184945 ) 3/16/2004 10:12:59 PM From: Amy J Respond to of 1577931 John, this is cool: "We can run it for a week at a time, and it reports once every hour, 24 hours a day, said Dzenitis, the principal investigator who has helped build three of the devices with federal funding. One is testing the air in the Bay Area. story.news.yahoo.com RE: "Among other things, Dunlop envisions creating smart shipping containers that would carry sensors with wireless transmitters and global positioning system locators. Each container coming into U.S. ports would radio its position and provide warning of an unauthorized intrusion or the presence of radiation. The cost target is $100 per container. " Intel could easily drive down the costs of a GPS chip in high volume, if they were ever to get a move on it and enter the market. I don't know why we don't have better scanners. Can you believe Ashcroft had pancreaitis? Maybe some good scanners will come out of his illness. It's certainly about time we have better scanners that can detect the stones that glog the pancreas. Ashcrosft had the same horrible illness my Dad had, only in my Dad's case, it was so bad the surgeons couldn't even see the gall bladder, the entire area was so infected they had to do five full-blown operations, and my Dad was on a ventilator for months and has been impacted - he's lost at least 10 years of his life due to this life threatening illness, whereas Ashcroft's infection was sufficiently minor in comparison they could remove it by laposcopy (minor incision), but even there, Ashcroft was in intensive care. No person should have their life threatened like that because of stones. We should develop scanners that are ultra sensitive so they can detect these types of things before they become problematic. It's really up to hightech to fix this. A medical doctor can't exactly invent this like an innovative engineer could. Possibly such scanners could dual as a military purpose too, like for scanning containers. I think this country's scanning technology is way, way, WAY behind where it needs to be. Too many of the good scientists entered the computer field rather than the medical imagery and devices field, like a friend of mine that wrote part of a well-known book on some ultra innovative scanning technology, that if implemented, would have saved a tremendous amount of cost and opened the door up to some new types of scanning capabilities in depth dimensions, such as what is needed today. This book will always remind me of how our computer industry essentially stole this smart scientist away from the medical scanning industry. But this is what happens when things are funded much better elsewhere. Regards, Amy J