Surge's Up!

Look Ma! No Wires!

Something I have just come across on the technology news is something demonstrated by Intel -- a wireless power system!

Their demonstration involved a stand with a 60-Watt light bulb powered by their magnetic resonance technique. This technique uses a tuned coil to resonate with the same frequency as that of the oscillating magnetic field in the power source. (image to left -- image from Daily Tech¹)

Intel demonstrated the system August 22, 2008² with the 60-Watt bulb possibly because it "...uses more power than a typical laptop computer."² While transmitting power has been possible with different technologies since the times of Nikola Tesla -- back before power-lines crossed the countryside. ...Tesla came up with the technique of AC power.

Nikola Tesla was looking for ways to transmit power over long distances; thinking that nobody would be interested in laying grids of power lines across city and countryside. Of course we now now different with our cities and countrysides criss-crossed with networks of powerlines carrying Tesla's multi-phased AC current. Image to right of Nikola Tesla demostrating wireless power transmission. (image to right -- image from Serbia the Golden Apple³)

The Intel demonstration however was of shorter range and not intended for sending power across the city, rather its intent is to power devices within the home or office without wires. It might only mean not having to plug in your cell phone, but it charging whenever at home or in the office -- or perhaps being able to use your notebook computer anywhere in the house or office without draining the battery and without needing to plug in... ever.

Another area is peripherals for the computer. Consider wireless keyboard and mouse which will never need you to replace or recharge a battery. I have been writing about cell phones and computer stuff -- perhaps focusing on it because I am writing this article on a computer and that was what they talked about in the article. Perhaps this is also because Intel is aiming in this direction. There are likely many other applications that you and I can discover.

I wonder if there are medical possibilities for keeping artificial hearts and other devices charged and running? The main power-source kept outside transmitting power to the device - magnetically coupled to the source outside?

MIT team and their setup to power 60 Watt bulb. (image to left - image from MIT News Officeª)

The efficiency of the demonstration system with the light bulb was only 75% efficiency at around a metre distance so you might not want to think about tossing away every power-cord. On the other hand, you might be able to have power stations for certain tasks... like for instance your desk might have one and all the computer equipment and peripherals might be powered by a local station in the desk. That might include charging your PDA, cellphone, mp3 player, notebook computer, portable hard drive and similar equipment as well as powering the mouse, keyboard, and other equipment without any cords crisscrossing the desk.

Still I think you might have some resonant frequencies for the desk, kitchen, entertainment unit, and...

Of course... there are always the spectres of health issues. They say that the interaction at the frequencies used with biological materials is minimal... but how minimal is minimal and what effects might there be? People are starting to consider the growing background of microwave radiation we are being bathed with even if we don't use cellphones, cordless phones, or wireless networking. Perhaps those people who line their hats with tin foil might have a good idea.

Later!
~ Darrell

125.

__________
¹ "Intel Demos Bizarre Tesla-esque Wireless Power Transmission System" Jason Mick (blog) August 22, 2008 - Daily Tech.

² "Intel demos wireless power system" AFP August 22, 2008 - Canada.com.

³ "Genius From Smiljan" Serbia the Golden Apple - Nikola Tesla (Serbia).

ª "Goodbye Wires... - MIT News Office" MIT news.

Other links: "Travelling magnetic field for homogeneous wireless power transmission"; "Technology Review: TR10: Wireless Power".

Grumpy Old Man - On the Buses

Front Seating, Invisible Disabilities, Elderly, Whippersnappers

The intrepid author has witnessed far too often, problems on the transit system when it comes to how the disabled and elderly are treated. The transit staff are not what I am talking about, I find they do a pretty good job and I find that things are constantly improving in regards to services within Metro Vancouver and I would hope in other cities as well. What I am referring to is the regard many citizens have for the seating set aside for people who may be disabled or otherwise have problems standing or walking on a moving bus.

I have watched young people taking up the front seats of the bus which are labelled for disabled or elderly passengers with no regard for those who might need them. The drivers can only do so much for them when the bus is full and they can barely see past the people standing in the aisles. It is okay for able bodied people to use those seats when they aren't needed, but the signs say they must be given up when the area is needed by the disabled, elderly, or when people in wheelchairs or mobility aids are riding on the bus.

I am not sure just what is up with these otherwise clean cut individuals. They just do not seem to care and they act like they are entitled to the seating - they payed their fare, they were there first, they get the seats.

...or that is what I thought until yesterday when after getting off a crowded bus I watched a couple of guys having taken up two of those front seats -- even while people with canes were standing with difficulty on the crowded bus -- literally dancing at the transit exchange.

After the fact I was wondering if they were even enjoying that they had taken up those seats? Perhaps they had other reasons that they were dancing and perhaps they were "ignorant" that they were doing anything wrong in the first place. I still would like to think that.

I realized something on the bus. There are many people with invisible handicaps and if you do see someone not getting up for someone else and giving up their seat -- they might be invisibly handicapped. I am not sure how appropriate it might be to ask someone who looks able if they are and using those seats unless you actually are the person in need of one of those seats... or you are asking for someone in need. When someone is entering the bus in a wheelchair or mobility scooter it is pretty obvious that those front bench seats will need to be folded up. I am not sure but I figure that any reasonable person who is fit would give up another seat for an elderly person who has to give up one of those seats for a wheel chair. But I am a bit steamed over totally fit young people who take up those seats without regard for others who need them.

I also know that often the people who need those "handicapped" seats are also those less likely to speak up and ask for them. They tend not to want to make a fuss and just want to go through life quietly. I know that is a generalization and it comes from anecdotal observational evidence, but it is what I have seen to be the case.

Somehow I think that when they refer to seating for disabled people they don't mean morally disabled or morally handicapped....

Later!
~ Darrell

105.

Smoke the Trial Frontier

A Different Reason Kids Might Not Want To Smoke

I think that by now most kids and adults have been hit over the head with so many health reasons not to smoke that they might even be doing studies on how anti-smoking studies could be harming your health. But if I had children, or were to be talking to young people about smoking I think I would take a very different direction. Sadly it probably would not work for any who are already smoking with any regularity.

It has to do with choice.

I think that many young people are very sensitive when it comes to what choices they have in their lives and what limitations they have placed on them. In fact I believe that many young people might take those first puffs -- if not out of pure experimentation - do so for a large part in a form of rebellion. Smoking is not something that will kill them outright, but is a bit dangerous and probably would get them in trouble with their parents if caught to one extent or another. Perhaps they might consider it safer than drinking or doing other recreational drugs, or doing some other dangerous activity and they can always stop -- right?

That is where my own personal discussion on why not to smoke comes in. I know far too many people -- smart people, strong people, people with great will power, people who have accomplished great things -- who can not break their dance with this smoky dragon. That goes for people who are trying to quite after a few years of smoking in their teens or twenties or a decade in their twenties or thirties or after decades. That is whether they have health reason to quit or a reason like a religious one or simply wanting to go out with people who are non-smokers who simply do not like to get too close to someone who smells of tobacco smoke.

With all of these people who are finding it nearly impossible to quit smoking that there is a huge industry in patches, gums, acupuncture, and hypnosis "stop smoking" systems, I figure it is not just so simple as saying "I'm going to quit and I just need a little will power."

I figure that if I were talking to a young person I would ask, if all these people are having such big problems, and if smoking really is no big deal to you, then why risk becoming hooked to something that might trap you into a habit you'll be stuck with for the rest of your life?

I watch people dutifully go out once an hour at work for a few puffs, I'll see them dress up to go out into freezing and soaking weather, I'll see them "needing" to go out first thing when they get up in the morning and last thing when they go to bed. They are hooked.

They all had to start somewhere, some time. Perhaps one puff doesn't turn you into a chain smoker, nor one cigarette, nor a pack. I don't know when or where it happens -- the thing is I don't think that any smoker really does and I do not think any young person does either who hasn't smoked and I ask, "Is it worth getting chained to a life long habit?"

Now I don't have any children and don't really speak in front of any as a speaker, but that is the argument I would give. They all know the score as much as it will have sunk in about the health issues.

Now there are some studies showing that indeed teens do greatly overestimate their ability to quit smoking -- so it isn't just my own anecdotal observation on this.

I have this quote of epidemiologist, Jennifer O'Loughlin talking about teens' ability to quit smoking after even having smoked a short while:

. . .

Many made a first serious attempt to quit after 2 1/2 month of sporadic smoking - and most failed.

"And by the time they've have smoked for 21 months they have lost confidence in their ability to quit," O'Loughlin said. "As soon as they experience craving, the story is over."

Despite early and increasing difficulty in quitting, it took about three years for the smokers to realize that they could not quit smoking of their own free will.

. . .

©Montreal Gazette 2008
Quotation from Canwest News Service - published July 16, 2008 "Teen smokers can't quit: study" author not cited

Now of course, if not smoking, what other form might this mild form of rebellion take?

Later!
~ Darrell

87.

Always Room for Improvement - Healthcare

Your Medicine is Covered... Except That One...

I guess when things are actually pretty good a person still looks at ways it could be improved. Now not every person in British Columbia enjoys the benefit of having their medical prescriptions included in their MSP but if you are low income or disabled or have very high medical expenses relatively you are covered with Pharmacare.

A person on Income Assistance or on Disability has their prescription medications covered and Seniors will have some or all covered as well depending on income. It is a pretty good system, though I sometimes am concerned over how much Seniors might have to pay out of pocket before they are eligible each year at the beginning of the year - after all, their income is the same whether that month is December or January. But that is one of those things in the nature of looking at ways that even something good can be improved.

What got me wondering is one of those situations that makes me frustrated. A person goes into the hospital emergency room for a health emergency - in this case kidney stones - and is treated and sent home with prescriptions for some medications. Now not having benefit of someone else to do so, they stop at the pharmacy on the way home from the ER to have the prescription filled. When the pharmacist calls them back up to the desk with the prescription filled: pain killers - check; antibiotics - check; medicine to make it easier to pass the remaining kidney stones - $13 please, it's not covered by MSP. -blink- Now someone frugal who always has some money socked away for emergencies this is not too much problem, but if you are covered by Pharmacare you are guaranteed to be someone who has a very low income. Even the most frugal on an income assistance budget has problems saving even $5 from month-to-month and it is the same $5 bill not one that can be added to the last. At the beginning of the month it is possible to do if they go with a little less food for the month. But for a person on income assistance, they are already feeling the pinch of even the bus-fare to get home from the hospital.

I am not in that situation, but that $13 might be the $13 a person might be counting on for cab fare home from the hospital instead of standing on the bus - or maybe buying something at the grocery store they might not need too much preparation for - or perhaps some of those non-prescription medication things that aren't covered. They don't cover the simple pain killers that you buy off the shelf, antacids, antihistamines, off the shelf laxatives or anti-diarrhoea medicatio or things of that nature. That $13 can be very important to those very people who are on a program like Pharmacare. For me, the $13 just made me grumpy, though I still smiled and was friendly with the pharmacist - as much as I could while feeling dazed and exhausted and in pain.

I can see that they have to have some limits on what is covered. For instance I can easily see that baldness cures might not be covered or medications intended for wrinkle treatment. But I think even then... there might be some circumstances... but then that might be covered by those very same special circumstance.

I can see that they want to make sure that people are not getting medicine that is not needed. You don't want to waste money when it is being covered by government. But... is it the government who is supposed to be judging if a person should be getting a type of medicine? Isn't a Doctor supposed to be the judge of what is in the best interest of the patient for their treatment taking into account the cost of treatment and the best benefit to the patient? Wouldn't they be the person to make a decision on whether a patient really might need a medication or perhaps in some cases the slightly more expensive one?

Now in the case of the medication for the kidney stone treatment, it is not a "Cadillac" treatment... mind you that $13 is only for 7 days... That doesn't mean that it is almost $2 a day, there is also the dispensing fee on there that would be the same even if it were $0.02 a pill. The medicine relaxes the "tubes" so that the stone can pass more easily without as much pain and I am assuming with less cutting and scraping. That means less chance of bleeding and infection and less chance of it getting blocked and causing complications like damage to the whole system including kidneys? True, if the stones are larger than a certain size or very sharp and pointy - I guess - they will blast them with sound waves and turn-em to gravel or in worse case operate. But reducing suffering must be a part of what is a legitimate use of medication covered or they would not be covering the pain killers - right? The same medication is used for treatment of prostate enlargement.

Granted, the Doctor said that this is a newer protocol for treatment of kidney stones and could be foregone, but... if the Doctor advises it, who is the government to "play doctor" and say know when they don't even know the case? If the government doesn't trust the Doctor to make the judgement call with some medications why do they trust the Doctor for so many other things like the signing of passports and other documents in addition to all the medications and treatments they can prescribe.

It wouldn't be so bad if there weren't some mechanism in place that a person might use to complain and perhaps request the money back on a situation by situation basis. I know that if I went to Income Assistance they would tell me that "We won't reimburse people for expenses already paid for, but if you put in a request before paying we might be able to have a cheque written for you." That might be fine for some things... but I bet they aren't going to go and make the trips to the bank with the cheque and ministry office and go to the pharmacy to pick up the medicine and deliver it - and do that on the day you need the medicine.

It would also be nice if there were simply a place to register a complaint... well no place the pharmacist knows about. I did make sure that she knew I wasn't angry or frustrated with her. She really has no control over the situation either. She has to go over the regulations of what is covered and what isn't as well and is in the path of the firing range of the frustrated customers whom she wants to keep as good customers.

My plans... well I plan on writing my local political representative. Since BC Pharmacare and MSP are Provincially managed that would be my MLA. She is always happy to hear from her constituents because she like to hear what people think. Unfortunately she is on the opposition side of the house this time. Though perhaps it doesn't matter as someone on the Governing side of the house might be limited if they are complaining? Anyway I think it worth writing as I have found that indeed a person's voice can be heard - especially if what is said is reasonable, and rationally presented. I am not just seeking help in a specific case. Not just "me me me" but for other people with other medical needs as well - perhaps not the greatest of needs medically, but also not requiring the building of a new hospital. Even just a mechanism for complaining or making a request at the pharmacist level? - to request a reimbursement or a mechanism that a person who doesn't have the resources might get that - oh so cheap to most - medication which might make a big difference.

On the other hand... some of these minor things can lead to complications and an ounce of prevention... Still things are improving and have improved. Which I think is why it is important to speak up and speak out and also why it is important to know how to speak out reasonably and rationally and how to find out where to seek out who to speak to. Get the right ear and things get done. Yell in the wrong ear and you are just a nuisance.

Later!
~ Darrell

51

Space the Travelling Frontier

Who Should Foot the Bill?

When we travel around this world, we expect to pay our way, or if we are lucky have someone else pay it for us, but it does get paid for us one way or another. What about situations when a person needs special provisions for travel? Who should pay for those special provisions? Should those special provisions be accounted for in modes of transportation and at whose cost?

Let's take a very simple example - a person in a wheelchair. Our public transit buses have provisions for wheelchairs. The newer buses have low floors and can extend a ramp to the curb with little slope at all. There are two bench seats which fold up against the interior side of the bus and the first forward facing seats fold up for the wheelchair to be strapped in and anchored facing forward. It does mean in the best case that if there is one person in a wheel chair, they take up the same seat space as 4 or 5 passengers would and these also are the courtesy seats for the elderly or disabled. They also request that if in use that the front 10 feet of the aisle not be used for standing passengers and this would be room that perhaps 5 or 6 people might stand.

Do not get me wrong. I am not an ogre who thinks this is wrong or inappropriate. I am proud that our transit system makes allowance for people who are travelling in wheelchairs and in mobility scooters or with walkers. I am proud that there are buses designed to make it easier for the disabled and elderly to get on board whether they are using mobility aids or not. It is a welcome bonus that the same features make it so that strollers and baby carriages can be taken onto the buses easily - not to mention those two wheeled grocery carts and wheeled suit cases. People who do not have cars and can't afford cabs need to carry goods as well as themselves too. The level floor must also make things easier for those with arthritis and who are visually impaired*. (We also have on nearly all our buses bike racks that can be used at least during daylight hours. They allow increased range for those who wish to cycle.)

But I have sometimes wondered, and worried, especially when I was much larger than I am today - what about when I need to take up more than one seat. Do people think I should pay for two fares? I used to be large enough that it would be uncomfortable for others to share a two person bus seat with. I always tried to travel only in off-peak hours for that reason.

That line of thought continues for me when I go to get groceries. I have this two wheeled grocery cart. It allows me to carry groceries that would be too bulky and heavy for me to carry otherwise. But I really can't take it down the aisle of the bus and would have to sit in the front seats - the very same front seats that fold up for a wheel chair. I guess I feel guilty about it. I end up taking 2-3 seats.

Anyway that is something that happens and is a need for people who rely on transit.

Getting around town is something that most people would agree is a necessity. What about getting around the country or from country to country?

Do the disabled and elderly have a right to travel? Of course in many countries nobody actually has a "right" to travel and must get the proper documents to do so, but in those forward thinking countries that allow people to travel, should the disabled and elderly have the same right and should they be held back for financial reasons?

Let's consider travelling from one part of a country or large state or province to another. It might not even be a matter of a vacation sort of trip, but perhaps something of a legal nature? Perhaps flying to the capital for some reason. I am not going to make up a reason - let's just say the person in question has to be there and it is not a matter of being invited or requested by the government or a company so it can't be argued to be on their dime. For a person who needs a cane or walker, they have transporter chairs to get you in and out of a plane with little problem. I imagine for most who even require more extensive mobility aids short of respirators it would just be the logistics of making sure their chair is shipped safely to the destination or there are aides to take care of pushing them at the destination if they can not ship their chair.

That is good for short flights at least of up to an hour or two, or even three - but there is the call of nature. Even if they have a transporter chair they can take up the aisle of the plane to the washroom, most - to my knowledge - are not disability friendly. Do they have "handicapped" toilets on planes? Would a person have to rely on adult diapers and catheter for the flight?

Now flight attendants can do a lot and I imagine they are trained to handle a lot of contingencies. I know that whole rows can be converted for people who are essentially in hospital beds. I wonder who pays the extra cost for all the seats and for the conversion if it isn't a matter of using the plane as an impromptu air ambulance?

My question is, should the disabled passenger? Should the government? Should health insurance? Should the carrier as a part of civic duty and "cost of doing business"?

I can't answer that myself really. I do know that often it is the elderly and disabled that are on the lowest incomes and that they have the higher medical bills to begin with if those bills are not being paid for by health insurance or government plans.

There are a lot of things that can get complicated if you become disabled or always have been. I just was thinking about this one.

I am proud to live somewhere where they are trying to see towards transportation needs of all of us and where there is not a huge fight when the city wants to put in curbs at corners that a wheel chair can get up or audible pedestrian signals for the visually impaired.

Just food for thought.

Later!
~ Darrell

45

__________
*Apologies if I am not using the correct terminology.

Grumpy Old Man - People who like hardwood floors in mutli-family dwellings...

People Who Like Hardwood Floors in Multi-Family Dwellings...
Live on the Top Floor!

Hardwood floors are excellent for people who suffer from allergies I am sure and they do look beautiful, especially if you are a lover of wood grain. But if you live in a multi-family dwelling like an apartment building and the people upstairs replace the carpeting their suite was designed with, with hardwood or cork flooring - or with tile or other hard flooring option it is not a resoundingly good choice. ...or that is the problem, it is a resounding choice.

I might have this wrong, but I believe that part of the design of many apartment and condo complex is that of floor covering and that includes acoustic design and what sort of sound carries over to the neighbouring suites. Carpeting with underlay is chosen in many situations because it deadens the sound, not just of footsteps from the tread of folk upstairs, but of sounds in general travelling through floor through the structure. In strata developments, there are most often regulations on making certain structural changes and especially in multistory ones this covers flooring. It makes a large difference in quality of life for the neighbours downstairs if hardwood floors are put in upstairs. Every sound seems then to resonate.

Even with side-by-side units it can be an issue. I know at my parent's townhouse unit, that when their next-door neighbour put in hardwood floors to replace the carpeting the noise went up multi-fold. Instead of just hearing it when they were yelling at each other at night, you would hear them clomping up and down the halls and stairs as well. That was something that went unnoticed before the hardwood went in. The "yellers" moved out, but their legacy - the hardwood floors - remained and probably increased the resale value as well.

I guess I am just getting grumpy. I got used to the muffled sound of carpeting quieting the elephantine tread of upstairs neighbours in buildings. Hardwood floors were common when I was young and are common now - and if not hardwood, then cork floors, parquet, or tile. You'd think people had become dust mite phobics fearing that dust mites might carry off their first born.

But I am just being grumpy. I probably should have a more allergen free setting myself... I really want tapestries hanging on the walls and thick carpets... but should have air filters and hardwood with hepa-filtered vacuum cleaner to keep things tidy.

Oh! I hear they bought tap shoes for the cat upstairs! Wonderful! ;)

Later!
~ Darrell

Sun and the Body

Shedding a Some Light on the Heart

Have you ever shone a bright flashlight through your hand on a dark and stormy night and marvelled at the almost x-ray-like appearance you see as the light passes through it?

Have you ever shone that same flashlight beam on that cheery campfire burning at your campsite only to be disappointed at how the cheerfully glowing red and orange embers turn to boring and slightly dismal grey ash?

Have you ever taken that same flashlight - so bright at night - and lit it in the sunny light of day only to find the beam cast by it on the wall or sidewalk to be hardly discernible?

A lot of that has to do with how we see light and how adjustable our marvellous eyes are to varying amounts of light. Our eyes adjust to the dark of night and make the flashlight bright to us in the night while adjusting so we are not blinded by daylight.

Getting back to the matter at hand - the light through the hand. Of course it is much harder to do the flashlight beam through the hand thing during the light of day - the light provided by the Sun overwhelms the light provided by the flashlight and what might pass through the flesh and bone of the hand. Light still goes through the hand though, but not just the flashlight beam. Consider the light from the so much brighter Sun!

We might not be able to see the light from the Sun passing through our bodies like the light from the flashlight through our hand at night, but I am sure that it would penetrate even deeper into our bodies. That we can't see it from the other side I figure has to do with just how much light is around in the daytime hiding the dim light that would pass through. That light would be dim like that of the campfire embers - visible in dark of night, but paled by day.

When I was growing up I though that rib cages were nearly solid walls of bone, like the planks of a ship side-by-side protecting the lungs and heart. It was only later studying a bit of anatomy that I learnt the gaps seem to be larger than the sections of bone in most critters. The heart and lung must not be hidden behind walls of bone but in open cages. The flesh of the chest is not too many inches thick before the lungs and heart. I can imagine if a person were to stand inside the lung, that perhaps in a room in a house at night lit by TV or end table lamp that it might be a dark place. But it the daylight - the much, much brighter sunlight must glow through the chest-wall lighting up the place with a warm red glow.

I think that on a sunny day, providing we are not covered in too many layers of tinfoil the daylight must even touch our hearts.

Later
~ Darrell

My Daily Strength

A Social Network for Support

Truly for my daily strength I turn to God and in turn God has given me what I need. This includes the loving friends and family I have. It also includes resources that are made available to me like the one I am writing about today.

DailyStrength.org is a Social Networking site with a difference. Its purpose is to be used as a support site for people with various issues including various health issues, conditions, and syndromes - most are recognized ones and some still aren't. It also addresses issues like abused spouses and children, people going through divorces, people facing the loss of loved ones and that sort of situation. The mental health issues of depression, and anxiety in their many disguises are dealt with too.

When you join Daily Strength you have the opportunity to join different support groups for the various issues. At that time you may enter the treatments you've taken and how successful they were, or you might disclose as little as you wish. The Support Groups have a wealth of information including forums to do with the support issue. There are in the support groups:

• Discussions
• Recommendations
• Advice
• News & Info
• Treatments
• Members
• Goals
• Stories
• Groups

It can be good to be able to discuss what you have experienced and are going through with others who have gone through the same thing. Daily Strength has many features of other social networking sites like photo and video albums, private messages, friend lists and the like. It also has a hug book that you can use to encourage friends and even strangers with. People tend to use the available option to have an avatar image to represent them on the site. The site actually is posting medical information and has Doctors posting and watching the forums to give advice.

What has me writing in my Blog today is the feature called a "Goal" which is exactly what the word says. There can be many sorts of goals like losing weight, keeping your blood pressure within normal levels, not yelling at your kids, exercising more, etc. but my current goal is to write an article a day here. I mentioned that two weeks ago and have kept up with it. The feature for that includes being able to email friends and relatives for support in reaching your goal as well as the neat signature badge and the Blog badge at the bottom of this Blog.

So far so good, but I do need some encouragement. I could use readers of course, but I am writing this as an exercise in writing and commitment so readership is secondary. I do mean to keep it interesting and perhaps informative - even useful to some.

I'll still keep working on my novels, but this will be a bit of a spur to keep me going.

I do recommend Daily Strength to people. You can keep anonymity here as much as you would care to. Daily Strength gives you a place to talk about some issues when you might even fear having burnt out your family and friends about it. They might not understand some of the weird symptoms and maybe some aren't so weird after all.

Later
~ Darrell