On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, David Marshall wrote:
A) I have "increased blood flows" when I have a pulsating headache too. I have "increased blood flows" whenever my heart rate and blood pressure increase. I'm not a neurologist, but I'd figure that that doesn't mean anything neurologically. It dosen't even mean that there's enhanced activity in that region.
Actually I think it's usually taken to mean that. As for the amygdala, it's not exactly pure science to say that increased activity in that region causes any damage or is associated with whatever negative impact these people think sex/violence incurs. Since this particular nucleus has a lot to do with fight or flight reactions and primitive emotions, I'd be ready to bet on similar reactions being found in anybody having fun/suffering stress/whatever.
That way you can actually tell which neurons are firing? (When a neuron generates an action potential, it doesn't use any energy. It uses it when it recovers. So when a neuron fires a lot, it sucks in a lot of glucose, which means that the radioactive glucose winds up in the neurons, which means that it's held there, which means that you can see it on a PET scan.)
Actually bloodflow has been found more accurate a predictor of neural activity in some studies than the use of radioactive markers - for some reason, the metabolic activity of human cells does not always get reflected in their oxygen/glucose consumption in any straight forward way.
meaningless. Do a behavoral study, then it might have some validity.
My point exactly.
D) Why would you use an MRI in this case _at all_?
I think the fastest MRI equipment can go upto tens (or even hundreds? anybody?) of images per second. Tracking bloodflow at such a high temporal resolution actually gives a lot more information about the local activity of the brain than those relatively static PET shots. (Remember, PET requires considerable repetition, consentration and conditioning before sharp images of brain activity are acquired.)
A) The researchers were purposefully trying to obscure data.
Not likely. Few people with MRI access are stupid enough to do this. Of course, we might find that the researchers have a concurring viewpoint on the subject matter...
B) The stupid attorney, and by extension probably the stupid judge, is trying to pull one over on the intentionally-stupid jury and voluntarily-stupid public, by distorting a biomedical study.
More than likely. Is this something new in the censorship debate?
* The public school system in the area: The shooter most likely had a history of behavoral problems, yet they put him in the general population.
General population? Phew...
7) Why can't we place the blame where it belongs: On the shooter?
'Cause that would mean children aren't innocent? Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi>, aka decoy, student/math/Helsinki university