At 15:12 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

Author wrote:

At 09:59 01/10/2003 +0100, you wrote:

But how many machines were readily available. And one doesn't

usually have

the luxury of deploying novel technology in the face of an epidemic

which

one is already struggling to cope with due to insufficient adequately
trained/knowledgeable folk on the ground.
Andrew

All the more reason to accept any help that was offered, surely?

No -because all USDA wanted was to conduct field tests with a couple of
machines – ie. 'play' with their new toys –

That seems a somewhat arrogant statement, Andrew!

Did you read the statement the USDA man gave to the Enquiry? – which was posted here a day or so ago – that's what he said!

Yes, field testing to get real world data for validation and approval would have been useful (for those purposes) but it would NOT (and could not) have had any impact at all on the way the epidemic was handled.

It's one thing to have promising technology – that looks as if it could be useful in the future – in semi-protoype form – quite another to have robust systems that can be deployed effectively on a massive scale in the face of a real world epidemic. Even now, what 2 years, on that has not AFAIK been done anywhere in the world.

Andrew