Search Details

Word: detectable (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

...sophisticated, state-of-the-art U.S. submarine could not detect a 190-ft. Japanese fishing boat before surfacing [WORLD, Feb. 26], how is the proposed U.S. missile-defense system going to work? The Greeneville flunked preschool; can our military handle the postgraduate world of Star Wars? VIRGINIA L. COPESTAKES Columbus...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Letters: Mar. 19, 2001 | 3/19/2001 | See Source »

...kissed him. "I'm amazed at the response of ordinary people," says Behl. "There's this whole feeling of empowerment, this feeling that somebody has struck a blow against corruption on their behalf." Things are certainly heating up in Indian politics - you don't need thermal imaging binoculars to detect that...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: How a Plucky Dot-Com Changed India's Political Landscape | 3/16/2001 | See Source »

...scare off would-be radiologists, "failure to diagnose breast cancer" has become the profession's No. 1 malpractice expense. Mammograms, by their very nature, miss 10% to 15% of all breast cancers. That means that even the best radiologists won't spot one cancer for every nine they detect. (Adopting more advanced techniques like magnetic resonance imaging doesn't solve the problem. MRI scans are far more expensive than mammograms, take three times as long and are much more labor intensive...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Need A Mammogram? It Could Take A While | 3/12/2001 | See Source »

...have part of the radiologist's job performed by technicians--or even computers. There are some data suggesting that technicians can be trained to read the mammograms as reliably as physicians, though at a slower rate. Radiologists already use sophisticated computer programs to improve their ability to detect tumors. No one is ready, however, to stake the lives of millions of women on mammographers who are not doctors...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Need A Mammogram? It Could Take A While | 3/12/2001 | See Source »

Even when the home tests work, the results can be misleading. Take, for example, the EZ Detect home colon-cancer-screening test. The packaging promises "a simple home test for detecting the early warning signs of colorectal disease." It's anything but. When customers open the $7.99 kit, they must make their way through a lengthy instruction sheet to learn the correct procedure for dropping a sequence of tissues into the toilet bowl to test for blood in the stool. The smallest error--such as leaving the tissue in the commode for an extra 30 seconds--can cause dramatically inaccurate...

Author: /time Magazine | Title: Do It Yourself? | 3/12/2001 | See Source »

Previous | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | Next