I mentioned early on that that would have been my preferred suggestion, but zygo had preemptorily stated it was impractical.

I know what you mean about invasive testing. We have the right to refuse medical care of any kind. The flipside to that is that doctors have the right to refuse to treat us (except lifesaving emergency treatment - in this state anyway - probably most everywhere?)

A few years back I got sent to the ER because I blacked out behind the wheel (without incident). They prudently held me for 24 hours and performed about every cardiac test they could (justify to my insurance company.) One of them was a cardiac stress test that involved injecting me with a radioactive isotope, which they "assured" me was completely safe because the ppb were so low. "Less than an x-ray" they said. I read their pamphlet and noted, "I've had x-rays before, and x-rays expose a person for a second or less, and don't require the necessity of carrying a letter to have on my person for a MONTH lest I be stopped at the border for being a "terrorist" because the isotope was enough to set off their nuclear bomb threat sensors."

I gotta confess, I broke down & cried over that decision (I was so upset they even offered me valium, but I declined), and I've regretted it (allowing the test - not declining the valium) ever since, especially because when I asked if the test was absolutely necessary, the said, "If you want to be sure, it is." They did/would not inform me that there was an alternative test that would not require being injected with an isotope. It wasn't the safety issue (though it was a factor) that had me upset so much as the fact that I've been a lifelong opponent of nuclear energy since learning what I did about it in college.... Radioactive isotopes for anything other than life-saving procedures (like cancer) just go against every fiber of my being. (Can you tell I'm a child of the 60s?)

Doc