Scientific Instruments

Boston's "T" needs to implement this technology on its subway operator's stat! There have been one or two serious accidents per month for most of this past year. Each has generated numerous injuries and even fatalities. In every instance the train operator have been intoxicated. On a recent collision between two trains one operator was high on cocaine and the other operator was intoxicated on alcohol.

It'll put some people out of a job...and rightly so...

http://www.urine-pimp.com/

Drug checks are a good place to start, but think of the posibilities for health screening and possible exposure to hazmat chemicals. This could have tremendous potential.

We give billions to charities working to cure diseases, and yet the tests we come up with tests detect illegal drugs first? This is infuriating that the payoff to detect drugs for law enforcement is ahead of methods to detect say cancers by similar noninvasive means.

Are we really that ignorant of disease etiologies?

Maybe they could get one to detect over unity thinking and throw the culprit into remedial science class? ought to be able to detect highlevels of BS in saliva. Then again, give it to the politicians.

milo

It does seem a waste of intellect, doesn't it? Diseases, pollutants, bacteria in foodstuffs, smoke in remote locations (arson or otherwise) astray (deliberate or accidental) viruses and bacteria, released poison gases (again deliberate or not) all could be detected for immediate safety's sake. But look at who gets the big budget bucks. The so-called "war on drugs" has become a self-sustaining pork barrel item.

They only said that initially they're testing it as a method to detect intoxication. More than likely to determine the reliability of the test alongside a previously established system. Think about it this way...Would you rather tell someone that they had cancer or that they're drunk based on a faulty test?

Would I rather society use scarce resources to perhaps detect a terrible disease and get immediate care to extend my life, or would I rather society use them to give the police yet another way to perhaps confirm something that they already can?

Hmmm

"I'll take early warning for cancer despite possible false positives for $200, Alex."

How many people face new cancers per year? 1,437,180 per American Cancer Society.

How many people will die of cancer in 2008- 565,650 according to http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/2008CAFFfinalsecured.pdf

How many are killed by drunk drivers per year? 18,000 according to MADD in 2003.

I'm cool with using a less than stellar test for early detection of cancer given these numbers.

If just 10% of cancer fatalities are diverted, based on early detection and immediate treatment, it beats the hell out of the drunk driving as a better use. 56565>18000.

However, you will be correct in saying that it doesn't have to be an either or choice. I grant you that.

That "initially" means that they will set up a business based just on that concept, and the proceeds from commerciallizing production will then be used for the disease detection down the road.

My gripe is the second class priority of the disease detection application.

milo

Thing is you're less likely to get lawsuits from false positives on roadside tox screens as opposed to cancer. Your heart is in the right place, but it is a business.

I hear you.

Now that would be another great thread, estimate the chilling effect of lawsuits on lifesaving innovations. May I respectfully suggest that you create that thread?

milo

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT BREAKTHOUGH AND IT WILL HAVE ALOT OF USES THE FIRST PLACE THIS SHOULD BE USED IS IN OUR NATIONS PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM

This could be a nice QA tool for the production of high-purity chemical products such as pharmaceuticals. The target chemicals would be known problem contaminants.

As for its use in testing for suspected drug abuse, it could be as beneficial as the Breathalyzer. Not everything developed for the police reduces freedom; some things such as this, if properly used, actually increase freedom. Police could release suspects within a few minutes if they passed this test instead of hauling them in for a blood test that may turn up negative. The reduced hassle and expense for everybody make this a technology worth pursuing.

"Not everything developed for the police reduces freedom;"

Do tell!

You're breaking new ground for me.

I Agree on the QA applications.

milo

Certainly workable if by definition the police don't obfuscate the matter in pursuit of the 'perfect society' with prejudice in mind. Understanding legislated law is only as good as the interpretation; the presented evidence of which is creative at best and downright draconian at worst.

Choose