Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
A few slices short of a loaf.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                             

LungCam

speaks for itself really...
  (+9, -5)
(+9, -5)
  [vote for,
against]

You can tell smokers what the habit's doing to their lungs til they're blue in the face, or show them pictures of the lungs of Joe I've-Been-Smoking-For-Twenty-Five-Years. Wouldn't it be better to give them an accurate and recent idea of what it was doing to ~their~ lungs? The first edible camera has already been invented, the size of a pill and easily ejected from the body via the normal route. Maybe when nanotech is a little stronger we could have a much smaller camera, one that could be inhaled without risk of choking, and living happily inside the lung. The pictures could be sent easily enough to a printer outside the body, providing regular updates as to how well the smoker is getting on with the cheerful task of killing him/herself. Not cheap, certainly, but neither are these adverts they've got on every bloody channel, and if it doesn't work on one patient, the camera will be easy enough to retrieve during a standard autopsy... The biggest problem I can think of is powering the little mite. I don't know if there's currently technology that can keep a battery charged using heat, but if so I'm sure there's enough thermal energy in a human lung to keep that camera click-clicking away! Possible spin-offs: LiverCam, CervixCam (although I'm sure this one would be misused...), NoseCam (for those that can't stay off that wicked cocaine).
Zhade, Aug 26 2001

[link]






       I know a guy who's in a wheelchair, as he's had to have both his legs amputated as a result of his smoking. After taking off one, they told him they could probably save the other if he gave up the habit. His wife died in a house fire caused by one of his cigarettes.   

       I'm not sure showing him the inside of his lungs will help any.
-alx, Aug 26 2001
  

       Yes, and I think we'll both agree that NOTHING will save a man that stupid, not the LungCam, not a neural bypass, not a visit from the Devil himself... I'm afraid that such chronic cases are beyond help, my dear.
Zhade, Aug 26 2001
  

       You're right about him of course, and I'm sure this kind of shock treatment would prove effective for some people.   

       But considering many smokers are unable to give up in the face of their bodies sending messages like chronic wheezing to them, not to mention lots of other horrible disorders, you have to question how many...the nature of addiction is that it knows few bounds.   

       I'd like to see this baked though, so that I don't have to rely on gruesome BBC documentaries to see the inside of other people's lungs, when I could see my own lovely pink ones and feel healthily vindicated. If a little nauseated.
-alx, Aug 26 2001
  

       I'm all for technology that improves lives. Enjoy watching your croissant as it makes its way throughout its journey on one of the spinoffs unmentioned in your last sentence.
thumbwax, Aug 26 2001
  

       Can't argue with any of that, alx. Thanks for your comments!   

       thanks for your input, waugsqueke, I'm all for improving this idea; do you have any suggestions for improvement, or other avenues I might explore?
Zhade, Aug 27 2001
  

       Drop 'nanotech'. Try something that exists.
StarChaser, Aug 27 2001
  

       StarChaser: Do you really think nanotech is not in the cards soon? I disagree. I think that big gains are being made.
bristolz, Aug 27 2001
  

       Define 'soon'. They just managed to make a couple of gears, and they can almost make a motor that isn't powerful enough to turn them. I don't see robots capable of rebuilding planets from a can of goo any time soon enough to save the hundreds of 'ideas' that start with 'Using nanotech...'
StarChaser, Aug 28 2001
  

       StarChaser, ~please~ don't be offended by this comment, as I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but none of the points you've made on ~any~ of my pages seem to be terribly constructive. I'm all for criticism, but if you're going to tell me that something is wrong, be a dear and try to suggest an alternative. And I'll have to agree with [bristolz]'s comment that nanotech is moving further from science fiction, towards science fact.   

       If it transpires that nanotech ~is~ impossible on such a scale, or if lenses become a problem, then existing medical technique can easily be used to implant a pill-sized camera into the lung.
Zhade, Aug 28 2001
  

       Like installing a window in the person's chest.
phoenix, Aug 28 2001
  

       LOL, [phoenix]! So simple I totally overlooked it!
Zhade, Aug 29 2001
  

       <shrug> I poke holes in dumb ideas. Not necessarily that this idea is dumb, but anything that includes 'nanotech' will be poked until someone can show me something other than a non-moving single gear, or a 'motor' with the caption 'Once we get it working this might move'.   

       When there are constructive additions to be made, I make them. You haven't been reading those.   

       As to alternatives, they already have bronchioscopes, as waugsqueke pointed out. With nanotech, it's 'wouldn't it be neat if', without, it's baked.
StarChaser, Aug 30 2001
  

       Still a neat idea. Might be good shock treatment for some, but I've known people that smoked even while battling cancer.
positron, Feb 02 2002
  

       As if it's not bad enough that I inhale burned tobacco and clove in my lungs, now I have to have a *camera* in there too? I cough up enough phlegm as it is. D- on this one.
disbomber, Apr 09 2005
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle