I don't disagree with you about the concept of screening healthy people, in most cases, it's a bad idea.
But don't tell me somebody have been using CT for screening - was that in the US ?
I live in Denmark where there was a minor debate a couple of years ago regarding screening mid-aged women for brest cancer. Your exact argument was the primary reason a lot of doctors opposed the idea. But even if they use X-ray for screening it's nowhere near as risky as doing full body CT. And the primary proponent of the screening was suggesting Ultrasound as the screening technique - which makes sense since modern ultrasound is almost as accurate , and in some cases more accurate, than X-ray mammography.
BTW i'm not at all against X-ray for diagnostics , and i'm not really concerned about the radiation hazard if the doctors believe it's nescessary - the risk is small. But full body CT for screening is crazy !!
You got the numbers wrong , it's Tc-99m and In-111.
And the problem with CT has never been about wrong diagnoses , or bad treatment , the problem is the radiation induced cancers. CT (and any other X-ray procedure) uses ionizing radiation and WILL statistically induce cancers in a number of patients. A problem that is also present with the mentioned Nuclear Medicine isotopes. Though on a much smaller scale since the energies are smaller and more specific. This nano-thing is very interesting because you can avoid ionizing radiation , but if it turns out to be toxic....... well , nothing is free;-)
Besides my normal engineering tasks i do some IT support in a small company with only one full time IT administrator. We are 50 employees , and are physically located in three different locations. We have something like 35 laptops 20 desktops and 10 servers.
Everything is backed up by a software called DMUS. The cool thing about it is that it backs up everything on ALL machines - but only keeps one copy of duplicate files. It runs in the background on every machine and you only notices a small freeze when it needs to backup the registry. It discovers machines when they are on the network and starts doing backup.
We have used it for over a year and are really happy with it. The company that makes it have recently been acquired by some venture capital firm , so i don't know where the development is going. And the name has changed. But check it out - it works for us !
http://www.r2software.com/
You could ask that.... but you shouldn't.
Any managment is obliged to follow the money , and of course the law. If they have specified something , but didn't get it , they have to try to get compensated.
But there is no doubt , they sent the crap out without checking it sufficiently. Thats not good enough !
Actually i don't know if they block access, and i haven't really bothered to try and make it work with another browser. It's really not a problem for me i just use MSIE for my bank, and Opera for everything else.
But it IS a major problem for a lot of people. Thats average home users, of course. If the bank tells them to use MSIE it must be safe - yeahh right !
You make it sound suspect to be in it for the money - isn't that the prime motivation for all business ?
Maybe i'm too sensitive , but i really love the Opera browser and i didn't mind paying for it from V3 to 7.?
I've used Opera from V3.something and it crashed alot in some of the earlier versions - but not anymore.
It's actually VERY stable. And it still has features that i could not imagine living without.
Anyway.. the real reason i can't convince friends and family to switch is compatibility with a few but very important sites. Mainly banking is a problem in Denmark , all the major banks ONLY work with MSIE.
That alone is the reason , most people cannot accept the fact that they have to use MSIE for banking and Opera/Firefox/whatever for all other internet surfing.
So... as a result they are all infected with spyware - and i won't help then if they insist on using MSIE.
Come on..... he could buy every gadget in the world and still be filthy rich.
But money or gadgets isn't what makes you happy - seriously , not even LOTS of gadgets;-)
Poor people love their stuff more because they had to plan and budget to get them, and because they only buy stuff they REALLY want or need.
Things you by on impulse often end up collecting dust , so he's problem is of course NOT to stay rich - but to avoid buying all kinds of crap he never uses.
The safety argument is SO far out. Of course it's not safe going to space - it's not even safe to take your car and go to work, it's a calculated risk. And a lot more people are killed driving their car than flying a spaceshuttle.
But ask the astronauts if they accept the odds - they will. So let them do it.
Another thing is the economics, but then say it like it is - we would rather spend the money elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't disagree with you about the concept of screening healthy people, in most cases, it's a bad idea.
But don't tell me somebody have been using CT for screening - was that in the US ?
I live in Denmark where there was a minor debate a couple of years ago regarding screening mid-aged women for brest cancer. Your exact argument was the primary reason a lot of doctors opposed the idea. But even if they use X-ray for screening it's nowhere near as risky as doing full body CT. And the primary proponent of the screening was suggesting Ultrasound as the screening technique - which makes sense since modern ultrasound is almost as accurate , and in some cases more accurate, than X-ray mammography.
BTW i'm not at all against X-ray for diagnostics , and i'm not really concerned about the radiation hazard if the doctors believe it's nescessary - the risk is small. But full body CT for screening is crazy !!
You got the numbers wrong , it's Tc-99m and In-111. And the problem with CT has never been about wrong diagnoses , or bad treatment , the problem is the radiation induced cancers. CT (and any other X-ray procedure) uses ionizing radiation and WILL statistically induce cancers in a number of patients. A problem that is also present with the mentioned Nuclear Medicine isotopes. Though on a much smaller scale since the energies are smaller and more specific. This nano-thing is very interesting because you can avoid ionizing radiation , but if it turns out to be toxic ....... well , nothing is free ;-)
Besides my normal engineering tasks i do some IT support in a small company with only one full time IT administrator. We are 50 employees , and are physically located in three different locations. We have something like 35 laptops 20 desktops and 10 servers. Everything is backed up by a software called DMUS. The cool thing about it is that it backs up everything on ALL machines - but only keeps one copy of duplicate files. It runs in the background on every machine and you only notices a small freeze when it needs to backup the registry. It discovers machines when they are on the network and starts doing backup. We have used it for over a year and are really happy with it. The company that makes it have recently been acquired by some venture capital firm , so i don't know where the development is going. And the name has changed. But check it out - it works for us ! http://www.r2software.com/
You could ask that .... but you shouldn't.
Any managment is obliged to follow the money , and of course the law. If they have specified something , but didn't get it , they have to try to get compensated.
But there is no doubt , they sent the crap out without checking it sufficiently. Thats not good enough !
Actually i don't know if they block access, and i haven't really bothered to try and make it work with another browser. It's really not a problem for me i just use MSIE for my bank, and Opera for everything else. But it IS a major problem for a lot of people. Thats average home users, of course. If the bank tells them to use MSIE it must be safe - yeahh right !
You make it sound suspect to be in it for the money - isn't that the prime motivation for all business ? Maybe i'm too sensitive , but i really love the Opera browser and i didn't mind paying for it from V3 to 7.?
I've used Opera from V3.something and it crashed alot in some of the earlier versions - but not anymore. It's actually VERY stable. And it still has features that i could not imagine living without. Anyway .. the real reason i can't convince friends and family to switch is compatibility with a few but very important sites. Mainly banking is a problem in Denmark , all the major banks ONLY work with MSIE.
That alone is the reason , most people cannot accept the fact that they have to use MSIE for banking and Opera/Firefox/whatever for all other internet surfing.
So ... as a result they are all infected with spyware - and i won't help then if they insist on using MSIE.
Come on ..... he could buy every gadget in the world and still be filthy rich.
But money or gadgets isn't what makes you happy - seriously , not even LOTS of gadgets ;-)
Poor people love their stuff more because they had to plan and budget to get them, and because they only buy stuff they REALLY want or need.
Things you by on impulse often end up collecting dust , so he's problem is of course NOT to stay rich - but to avoid buying all kinds of crap he never uses.
The safety argument is SO far out. Of course it's not safe going to space - it's not even safe to take your car and go to work, it's a calculated risk. And a lot more people are killed driving their car than flying a spaceshuttle. But ask the astronauts if they accept the odds - they will. So let them do it. Another thing is the economics, but then say it like it is - we would rather spend the money elsewhere.
As echelon evolves and RFID's go everywhere, soon You'll have to walk around naked if You want privacy.