Slashdot Mirror
DNA Detectors for Hazardous Metals
ddillman writes "EETimes.com has a story about new DNA-based sensor chips that can detect any of a range of hazardous metals such as lead and mercury in real time. Previously, this had required lengthy and expensive testing in batches for specific elements. When the sensors detect the metal for which they're testing, they emit light into a fiber optic line. They've already got a range of three orders of magnitude in sensitivity, and expect to be able to refine this considerably."
Leaded fuel makes car engines get more MPG from fuel (== cleaner air) and is less damaging to the environment than the current MTBE we add to fuel in the name of clean air. It also makes engines run cooler and therefore last longer. That's less metal to smelt (a nasty messy chemical process) to make new cars.
Nothing to date beats asbestos for deflecting heat. And it's harmless unless crushed into dust and inhaled, but that's true for almost anything. Iron can rust into power, be inhaled, and cause fatal lung edema. Better ban iron too.
CFCs. Banned because they *might* damage the ozone layer. We don't know. Let's guess. And if most CFCs are produced in the northern hemisphere, why is the ozone thinning over Antarctica? Weather pattterns do not favor hemispherical air exchange. Must be a natural phenomenon. As for "global warming"? I don't see it. In fact all I hear on the news is stuff about record cold and snow and ice which is puting an all time demand on energy. In the 1920s and 1930s, econazis were freaked about global cooling! Anyone know what the weather will do over the next 100 days? Nope. We can't even predict if it'll rain tomorrow. BTW, did you know that dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is a greenhouse gas and raises Earth surface temps by 30C [compared with a waterless earth]. Even a couple of inches of the stuff in a pool kills millions of kids every year! Oh! My! God! We need to bad this evil substance!
Radium in watch dials.... was harmless to everyone excepy stupid watch makers who licked the brush while painting watch faces. Not one other person was injured by radium in watches/clocks. Not one. Yet it's now banned.
Now it's power lines in residential areas under fire. "But your chances of getting leukemia TRIPLE in you live near power lines!". I'm sorry, but risk going from 1 in 10^12 to 3 in 10^12 is still zero. Say it with me. Zero. Three times zero is still zero.
There are two important questions to ask here: (1)Is there global warming? and (2) What's causing it? The answer to number 1, as far as we can tell from our measurements over the past 50 years or so, is yes. But why? While politicians desparate for a crisis are eager to blame human activity (which they have an expensive solution for, obviously) climatologists are not willing to agree with this diagnosis. In fact, the most common reason given for the recent temperature trend is "natural cyclic process." While I firmly believe in taking care of our natural resources, I don't think we should fall for Chicken Little politicians who simply want to create a crisis in the interest of gaining power.
Granted. But it's enough to establish a (short-term) warming trend, regardless of determining the cause or long-term effects.
In addition to these, that same page also lists numerous others who still use leaded gasoline, but have plans to phase it out.
It had indeed been overlooked, but it's a rather broad statement: `DNA can also act similar to enzymes'. That covers a lot more than the techniques mentioned in Lu's thingy and the article I mentioned. So it's only partly relevant in my opinion.
0x or or snor perron?!
Also, about regulation on a general scale, safety regs (such as those in the airline industry) can increase customer confidence, and generate a larger market.
If so, the airlines would set up a trusted certification scheme by themselves. It happens all the time in uregulated industries.
Pill makers should be regulated on their products, otherwise what would cause them to print the long term side-effects on the labels?
1. See above
2. Lawsuits if they recklessly endanger people this way would be very costly.
3.
Regulation isn't something the big-bad-government does to impede business and make itself feel important. It's one of the ways that a society defines its value system and generates accountability for when it's not being upheld.
Regulation is one way the state excercises power over society. What you say here is exactly what it wants you to think. Good boy!
Bzzzzt. Wrong. Sulphur is not added. It is naturally present in all petroleum products. It is actually removed from diesel fuel in current European, and in near-future US, diesel fuel - just as it is removed from gasoline.
Current US sulphur levels in diesel fuel are 500 ppm. In Europe I think it is currently 50 ppm or so. In the US, it is headed to 15 ppm in a few years.
Far better diesels which meet stringent emission regulations can be realized with lower sulphur fuel. In Europe they can buy diesels with almost twice the hp as the one I can buy in the US at present. Hopefully the US will get in line with Europe with the new sulphur regulations.
Sorry to nitpick .. but "measure in Real Time .." is bullshit. Probably ANY existing sensors could do this !!!
Reminder : Real Time means to do an action in a pre-defined timeframe. This could mean 100 days for a in deep analysis. (i.e. send the probe to the lab)
Samba Information HQ
...will they be able to turn lead into gold? :]
actually, lead can be turned into gold by bombarding it with protons - the same way heavier unstable elements are made, problem is the process is much more expensive than gold itself.
And I talk with some experience about flying. Past year I've flown United Airlines, American Airlines, US Airways, British Airways, Air France, Air China, Finnair, SAS, Air Pulkov(Russian). Within past 14months I've been to 4 different continents and 9 different countries and flown anything from a brand new 777 to small propeller-planes(MD-11, Boeing(777,767,757,747), Airbus(A320 etc.), Tupolev(russian), Saab(propeller)).
If regulating a) the building b) maintaining c) operating of these planes keeps them safer while increasing prices that's just fine with me. You don't want to be lightheaded about airline safety. My average ticket price for an intercontinental two-way flight is usually around 650usd, totally affordable. Sometimes I get a good deal and fly for 500usd or so, sometimes it costs up to a 1000usd.
I feel relatively safe flying something that operates to/from western europe or usa but airlines like air china(used boeing 767's) or Air Pulkov(used Tupolev's, russian) do make me a little uncomfortable. Why? Because I know that in these cases there is little or no control from anyone but the profit hungry airline-companies. Also, most of the accidents occur during take off or landing so ground control does play a big role(also regulated heavily in europe and usa).
I wouldn't be surprised at all if they(china,russia,s.america,india,africa,etc..) skip some routine checks that normally come out negative anyway. I mean it's a waste of time right? Something that 99.99% of the time is okay is not going to brake down right now.. Maintenance cycles might be longer, some minor problems might be ignored for a while. Nothing big, no showstoppers.. But a slight increase with the chance for kabooms..
These kind of things do get checked regularly in w.europe and n.america and fixed right away. What about somewhere where getting the replacement part would take few weeks to arrive? Are they going to keep the airplane off ground just because of something that most likely is not going to be a major problem. I really doubt. And if they did, that would be highly unprofitable.. But where there is regulation they don't have a choice!(or they get their asses sued even if nothing happened!)
> Pill makers should be regulated on their products
I agree wholeheartedly with you on that point. That's why I mentioned it in the above post (perhaps it wasn't quite clear). I'm not against government regulation, where it's appropriate, but having regulations on things like airlines just seems to be illogical. If the regulation was never there, people wouldn't have a psychological dependancy on it.
> Regulation isn't something the big-bad-government does to impede business and make itself feel important.
True, but it's become a bit too pervasive. Regulating the electric companies in California, for instance, is providing problems today. Making them jump through all sorts of hoops to get new plants built is having its effects today via rolling blackouts. Similarly, the overuse of the existing plants and the following repairs are costing the electric company quite a bit of money. According to a recent report (I don't have a link, sorry), they'd have to increase rates 82% just to break even. I'm not saying regulation is bad (it's necessary for some things), just that it should be used in moderation.
What's the point of catching someone if you're not going to do anything? So people will get caught, big deal. If nothing happens, they'll learn that they can commit crimes without worrying, because even by some bizarre chance they're caught, they won't have to serve any jail time, etc. No penalties==no crime reduction.
> there is little or no control from anyone but the profit hungry airline-companies
And losing a 767/having lawsuits because of it is profitable for them?
I don't know if I'd want the government deciding what health care is best for me. Or is it different in Canada? Do people have a choice in what kind of care they receive? I suppose the only thing I'd really have against government-controlled anything on a national level is how close it comes to socialism. What about the people who use the service (roads, health care, whatever) less than others (or not at all)? They're paying for something they're not getting. That doesn't quite seem fair to me. Things that are run at a local governmental level are generally in better condition (the smaller, local politicians don't have the kind of campaigning budgets that national politicians do; therefore, they are more easily replaced), so I don't have much of a problem with that (unless it's some huge industry).
Certainly, though, there should be some price caps on private-sector health care. Hospital bills here in the U.S. can be staggering, even for minor things.
Right premise, wrong organization. That's what charity is for. If someone were to see you in the street, mug you, only take, say, 40% of your cash, and give it to a homeless person, would that be theft? Next question: how is that any different from socialism?
Society is possible because we have laws that are followed. If people have no reason to follow the laws, there would be no society. If criminals didn't figure that they'd be caught, why would they do anything to the witnesses? And if the witnesses are safe, why not increase penalties for crime? Since the criminals aren't thinking about being caught, keeping them from committing more crimes by keeping them in prison longer seems logical.
The people who figure that, by helping their neighbors, they'll be better off are the ones who aren't going to be committing any crimes.
If people behave because they want to behave, why do some people commit crimes?
You're neglecting the Norweigian countries. Either Sweden or The Netherlands (I've forgotten which) has an average income tax of 90%. This is because nearly everything is socialized in the country. What happens then is people become lazy, figuring that no matter what, they'll be covered by the government, and they won't be able to make any decent money that's not taken by taxes anyway, so why bother?
The difference between charity and government handing out benefits is the simple fact that charity is voluntary. It's a matter of my own ethics. If you'll look at one of my earlier posts, I do support price caps on health care (it's far too expensive now). Cut health care prices down to a reasonable level and the health care industry will be able to cover a lot more people (because more people will be able to afford it), charities will be able to help more people, and because health care isn't much different from one doctor to the next, they'd have great incentive to provide discounts (i.e. agree to come in for 4 checkups this year and get a 50% discount) to get more customers. I am not justifying greed and the neglect of the less fortunate, but what I am saying is that I don't agree with the government assuming the role of caretaker.
Changing the regulation would be better. You're right that their problem is in going from regulation to deregulation, but regulation would not have been necessary if the electric companies didn't have a local monopoly. That's why they were regulated in the first place (yet another use for regulation). Changing the regulation to be less restrictive, while protecting customers from unwarranted (key word here) price hikes, would be best. They need to either change their regulation, finish deregulating the utilities, or go back to regulation. Otherwise their power companies will probably go bankrupt. Where's the benefit in that? :^)
> do you think a completely de-regulated society would run itself allright
In a smaller (less populous), less technologically developed society, sure. Small communities have a way of spreading the word about someone. With TV, newspapers, radio, etc. today, it'd be too easy for companies to buy commercial time convincing their customers that they really ARE trustworthy to be effective. You'd have to have a pretty blatant company for the entire nation to know that something's not quite right with it. Then the companies could just quietly rename themselves or slip their equity under the table to a new startup company that, by a strange coincidence, has the exact same employment/payroll chart.
Just out of curiosity, though, as far as regulation goes, though, what areas of business do you think need it most? Would it be the public health sector, tech companies, etc.?
> No-one dares to resist the big industries anymore because of the political clout they wield. Just try it and you'll be branded as a communist for the rest of your life. It's a political suicide.
OK. I'm game. So if regulation is ineffective in the important areas of industry, and restrictive in the non-critical areas, why have it at all?
> The existing law enforcement doesn't prevent murder and rape. Do you think we should just let it all go?
Two different scenarios. With regulation (according to you), corporations are able to buy their way out of the tough regulations via political contributions/PR campaigns. Murder and rape happen because we've got a lax penal system. Instead of the turnstyle jail system we have now, if we were to increase the jail sentences to maybe 30 years for rape and 60 for murder and eliminate any chance for perole, that rate would take a sharp downturn.
> Making the penalties harsher has never decreased the crime rate. In fact, it just makes the crimes more violent: why leave any witnesses. This is especially true in the case of the capital punishment.
So, according to you, if we were to decrease penalties, we would decrease the crime rate. If we decrease the penalties, PEOPLE WILL HAVE NO REASON NOT TO COMMIT CRIMES (ignoring human decency). People who commit crimes don't want to get caught, because there's a (pseudo-)price to be paid. If tougher punishment isn't the answer, what do you propose?
And if the government's so concerned about regulation, why haven't they put a stop to it? Surely the FAA could have shoved something through.
What can this be used for? I mean yeah it's real great that they are able to do this, but does it have any real applicability?
----------------------
58.0% slashdot corrupt
Current research suggests we may be having less effect than many environmentalists would have us believe. On the other hand, the research also shows that "greenhouse gases" are increasing steadily without regard to volcanic eruptions, or other natural or artificial disasters.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
My biggest problem with that aproach is this.
... So they stop funding PDQ which may do the same thing (maybe even cheaper and better)
Investors hear the goverment is funding development of XYZ...
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
Do you honestly believe that the organized society is possible only because of a couple of hundred or thousand policemen are patrolling on our streets? Get real.
In practise, the people could do whatever they like but they choose not to do so because it's more benefical to them to leave their neighbours alone or even cooperate with them.
If you're wealthy enough to pay for your own private health care you can surely afford a few dollars to public health care on the behalf of those who cannot afford it. It's not unfair at all. It's about caring about the weak which IS the society's fundamental function.
"Glass does not flow. People who think that 'non-crystalline = liquid' need to re-read their physics or materials texts. There are telescope lenses and mirrors 150 years old. None of these have changed shape by as much as a nanometer. Any such change due to flow would be obvious, even ruinous."
Read more here.
And if they would, then what are you complaining about? The result is still the same.
What you're trying to justify here is simple greed and the neglect of the less fortunate.
Besides, I don't know any modern country - socialist or otherwise - where the people in general have higher than 30% income tax. I'm well off any my tax percentage is 26 %. Something like 40 % is possible only if you're a filthy rich individual (who also then can afford to pay the tax) or a corporation which really should be paying back to the society.
If you don't want to pay taxes, get out of the society.
So you claim that the only thing that's keeping the society running is the threat of violence from the government?
Nonsense. As I said there is a reason for most of the people behave: life is much easier that way. It's nothing but enlightened self-interest. Those few who won't behave cannot be controlled any better by harsher penalties. It will only make them more desperate and bitter.
Norwegian countries? I suppose you mean the Scandinavian countries?
Well, I am from Denmark (although I live abroad at the moment) which is one of the Scandinavian countries. My tax level has always been less than 30%. The taxation in other Scandinavian countries is pretty similar usually capping out at 60% even if you're filthy rich.
Basic health care should not be a business because whenever there's business, the poor people will suffer. You say that cutting the prices will allow the health care industry to cover more people. In my opinion, health care should always be available to all people. I don't mind the private health care or private schooling as long as a free and adequate alternative exists.
No criminal will go about his business thinking "what if I get caught". That's the major failure of the harsher penalties policy. It doesn't matter how harsh the penalties are, because "I'm not going to get caught" is the mindset of a criminal.
Make getting caught more probable and you have your reduction in crime rate.
This isn't to say that government regulations are the only thing keeping us from barbarian hordes :-). Just that it is easy to talk about how virtuous people will be without government when you've never actually seen what people are like without government.
What we're seeing here looks like a spinoff technology from some sort of bio/chemical warfare detection program. Not that I have a problem with that mind you. Just dont confuse it with out-of-the-blue governmental largesse.
----------------
Encrypt Everything
It's happy _GNU_ year.
All of this bio-engineering news reminds me of the Flintstones. It makes me wonder if our clocks and flashlights will be made of living, self healing tissues in 20 years. Just feed 'em, love 'em, and give 'em a toliet and they'll last for years. :)
To sig or not to sig. . .
But even a small blip by geological standards would wipe out our civilization. We would have great trouble dealing with a sudden change in sea level (either way, by expanding of the caps during an ice age or their elimination and subsequent sea level rise). There is evidence that these changes can happen suddenly and unexpectedly in the geological record, which is one reason why people worry about them.
And while it is pretty certain we can't wipe out all life, it is pretty certain that we can wipe ourselves out, possibly taking with us everything we love and care about in our world. The ecosystem always comes back after a major shock, but it seldom looks much the way it did before the shock occurred.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
This will obsolete everything we learnt in those chemistry classes ;-) The funniest thing we did was the qualitative unorganic analysis (freely translated from Norwegian), where we spent an entire afternoon trying to find out which metals were in a sample. Now can anyone do the same analysis in a second. Boring.
Happy new year!
Education is definetely something that should never ever slip entirely into a private market. Infact I think I'd rather see an elimination of private school because they create a kind of class system. And education most certainly be controlled at a local government level (but it's probably a good idea if there's nation wide minimum standards to be upheld).
That's why taxes are higher here in Canada, because of universal healthcare. But overall, this means that employers need to pay less for insurance, and on an even greater scale, less money is spend per capita on healthcare here in Canada than in the US. Canadian taxes are income-scaled, and everybody pays into it.
I think the idea is that everyone pays into healthcare, whether they use it or not for two reasons: 1. they never know when they'll need it (and it's nice to not get enormous bills when you get hit by appendicitis, or a car) and 2. It's better for the whole society overall if everybody is healthy, so even if you're not sick, you're still reaping the benefits of a stable society and economy.
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
So maybe, the solution isn't to remove regulation, but to change the type of regulation (we're getting way off topic here, but it's fun). Just for the sake of argument, do you think a completely de-regulated society would run itself allright (based on things like natural liability... if you're not trustworthy, people will exclude you from the economy in a natural, organic kind of way)
I guess in that respect, super-pure capitalism is a lot like anarchism. VOTE ANARCHIST!
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
I guess my bias is that a lot of essential services should be publically run, and managed on a local government level. I'm all for decentralization of democracy and of the economy. That would include fire, ambulance, water, electricity, gas (for heat, maybe not for gasoline), healthcare, postal service. Perhaps even telecommunications could be managed better if it were publically run. Then again, governments don't respond to market demand in the same way private companies do, and if governments were responsible for the expansion of the internet, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
From a completely degulated stand point, even in a large, spread out society people could organize themselves, form guilds or unions or advocacy groups, and publically educate people on who-dun-what. But I think overall that's a long shot, and anarchy is probably just as bad an idea as freemarket capitalism.
Yeah... I'm not a capitalist, or maybe I am a capitalist by the true definition. I just don't think that what we call capitalism here in the Western world is acutally that, it doesn't really live up to what it was supposed to be theologically.
And I'm a Canadian :P
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
The patent will be regulating that.
Also, about regulation on a general scale, safety regs (such as those in the airline industry) can increase customer confidence, and generate a larger market. Pill makers should be regulated on their products, otherwise what would cause them to print the long term side-effects on the labels?
Regulation isn't something the big-bad-government does to impede business and make itself feel important. It's one of the ways that a society defines its value system and generates accountability for when it's not being upheld.
Jeremy McNaughton
------ Live simply so that others may simply live.
If used for bullets to shoot people in the accounting department.
One thing that strikes me when browsing the 'current research' mentioned above is that the main point of reducing our use of fossil fuels is not (or maybe, shouldn't be) to decrease CO2 emmission, but to avoid wasting precious energy. I would suggest a look at dieoff for some, imo, interesting graphs and references.
I live in Ithaca, NY, and there are a bunch of _really hyper_ environmentalists here (it's a university town attatched to an apparent mecca for old hippies turned yuppie). In any case, there used to be a gun factory here (Ithaca Gun... more than 30% of the surving guns made here are still in use by the CIA. They made damn good sniper rifles. Made a Springfield look mundane.) They also made shotguns (even pump-action repeaters. Hold down the trigger and just pump through all 9 rounds. Makes even a Mossberg 590 pale in comparison...) In any case, there is a piece of land next to one of the gorges that is immediately adjacent to the gun factory that was at one point (almost 100 years ago) used for a test-firing range. There is a shitload of buckshot and rifle bullets sitting around in the woods there.
The city of Ithaca just recently decided to buy that little chunk of land from Cornell, or some thing like that, but in the process the EPA came in and took a look at it, and it said in their report that some of the surface soil samples contained upwards of 250,000 PPM of lead! This set all the environmentalists off. That's 25% lead, 75% soil. The trick is that the creek that runs through that spot, when sampled downstream of this shocking and dangerous environmental hazard, has the same lead concentration as it does upsteam. The lead is in the form of very non-water-soluble slugs of metallic lead. No powdered oxides like in paint. It's not going anywhere. Now there are a bunch of environmental nuts going apeshit about this, but it's really a minor problem. It's sat there for over 100 years and isn't even getting into the fucking water.
If they dig up that spot to get rid of all this contaminated siol, i may go and shoot them myself. It would be ruining the _best_ laser-tag obstacle course in the world...
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
Biological detection should be possible (after all that's what our immune systems do every day) but might be harder with their process (pure DNA strands selected with massively sped-up evolution).
;-)
Get your patent now
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak
Lead and MTBE are both noxious gasoline additives used to increase octane rating, which allows higher compression ratios, which are more efficient. Ratios as high as 11:1 or so are feasible this way.
Since it is stupid to use a gasoline engine in the first place, it is pointless to spew EITHER of these into the environment.
My car has a turbo diesel engine. It has a compression ratio of 19.5:1, and gets about 50% higher mpg than a gasoline engine of similar performance in the same car. And only ordinary #2 diesel fuel is needed, with no additives whatsoever beyond a modicum (2 oz per 10 gal) of anti-gel when it gets really cold.
This modern diesel engine makes next to no smoke, emits practically no aromatic hydrocarbons, and has levels of other pollutants comparable to gasoline engines. Believe it. It pulls way more torque at lower rpm than a gasoline engine. Its fuel requires less energy to refine than gasoline, and there are no evaporative emissions. Or it will happily and efficiently burn bio-diesel when/if available.
If the choice is between gasoline and diesel, all cars except maybe a few super high performance models should be diesels. In the long run there may be other choices, but this is vast improvement we could make instantly.
I tend to agree that fear of asbestos has reached irrational levels, but not for the reason you state. Rust particles if inhaled in large quantities might harm you, but not by giving you cancer.
The rap is that asbestos particles inhaled even in tiny concentrations can cause cancer. This is sort of true.
The surprise is that the form of asbestos most used for insulation is not the form that is highly carcinogenic. Something to do with the size of the particles created if pulverized.
This is a little like the furor over particulates in exhaust emissions. Guess what? The particles in diesel exhaust emissions is not of a size which is very carcinogenic. Particulates in gasoline engine exhaust are much finer, and more carcinogenic. It is stupid to just measure the quantity; you have to assess the qualities as well. But that is too hard for knee-jerk environmentalists (as which I class the EPA). Sigh.
...will they be able to turn lead into gold? :]
Or even be able to find gold deposits underground with a simple handheld device? Maybe something wireless, for the handspring, and open source...
> When safety is involved, and when health is an issue, it is good to have an agency in the loop
Government regulation is useful at times, but it can lead to unnecessary price hikes. Airline safety regulation, for example, is entirely unnecessary. Airlines don't want to be spending $100+ million for a jet, only to see it go down. If they did business that way, they'd be losing money right and left, to say nothing about the lawsuits that would follow. Where government regulation is important is in industries where the companies wouldn't be able to be found to be clearly at fault. Medicinal corporations, for instance, marketing a drug that causes long-term cancer would probably not be found guilty in any suit against them due to the fact that research would be sparse, with little time for it during the suit. For monitoring for harmful chemicals, that sort of thing is iffy. If private individuals/corporations can do it, I'd say have them be responsible for it (including "missing" a warning from the systems) rather than using our tax money. That way, there'd be more to fund research for things like this.
Press releases and slashdot articles are notoriously inaccurate in describing patents and patent applications.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
This URL describes how belgian scientists engineered a bacteria which emits light in the presence of certain metallic ions. From this bacteria they took the genes which did this. About the same as described in the article...only here a more intelligent way of finding the genes was used. The document was written in april 1997. That quite some time before professor Li Yu did this! I wish the professor good luck with his patent:) I fear he will get it since the patent office in the USA has already shown time after time that they do not know what they are talking about...
0x or or snor perron?!
"That capability has become a high priority at the National Institutes of Health, which provided the funding for Lu's experiments. The NIH has specifically targeted health applications for the technology, including environmental monitoring, clinical toxicology, wastewater treatment and industrial process monitoring."
I like it when governments are involved with this kind of thing. When safety is involved, and when health is an issue, it is good to have an agency in the loop. I'm glad that the NIH has targeted these applications. It is a reasonable application of tax money. What do you think?
John S. Rhodes
WebWord.com -- Industrial Strength Usability
How to Download YouTube Videos
I can see a use for this in homes and businesses (schools, organizations, etc.). People drink water every day, but occasionally, it's contaminated. Because checks aren't performed every day (for time/economic reasons), contaminations can slip by unnoticed for weeks or even months. This could provide a real-time testing (maybe once a day or something) for dangerous metals and set off a warning if there's a problem, kind of like carbon monoxide/smoke detectors. It would probably be more useful, though, if it detected for biological contaminants (due to the fact that biological contamination is far more common). Just a thought.