Our family: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_QCKxeQAlg
- Family Elder
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:00 pm
- Location: Kanata, Ontario, Canada
I have not had the mathematics of high-frequency Doppler ultra-sound (greater than 1 MHz, which is definitely inaudible by humans -- for all I know by bats, too), explained to me. I have seen traces of it on a storage oscilloscope of late 1970s vintage, and I know it conducts through metals. Bone, tissue and blood seem plausible. The sound waves of a high-frequency probe are detectable in real time. It behooves the scientists who use it, to understand the math behind this imaging, perhaps not as well as Dr. Haacke, but at least well enough to cite it in their writing.
I do not know if any manufacturers, other than the one Dr. Zamboni uses, have equipment usable for this purpose but I believe they are capable of it. I did not see any deep cerebral veins on the display of the Japanese machine, which was definitely very recent -- it used a recent operating system. I believe it could easily have displayed them.
I do not think Italians have exclusive license rights to Doppler ultra-sound technology, however if you believe me, you have a fool for a lawyer. My own expectation would be that the Italians are good at making a doctor-friendly statistical analysis of Doppler data (perhaps not in real-time) in their computer programming.
I think that, if it is not well-understood, it would be worth the trouble to seek an explanation, because of the potential cost-savings over other imaging techniques, both in money and in ionizing radiation exposure. I do not believe that, in this application, it is unreasonable to use the best technology available for screening, considering potential costs and benefits. There may be better ways to do science that are not meant to be low-cost, or there may not. I'd take an expert's view written in English, any day. Many are better able than I, at understanding the math, other languages, and business cases.
Not a doctor.