HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Warlow, C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Warlow, C.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

For UK medical schools at least, a higher level of chemistry compared with physics is required for student entry. This is very odd when you think about how much we depend on applied physics–for imaging with anything from x rays to ultrasound, for endoscopes to poke into every orifice, for monitoring bodily functions from the brain to the fetus, and for all the clever coils, stents, and balloons so beloved of our interventional colleagues. Of course, as with cars, TVs, and boiling the kettle we don’t have to know the physics of how they work–we just have to know which buttons to press and not to let the kettle boil dry. But what about MR imaging? It seems to me rather useful to understand just a little of the physics behind the images, and you will if you work carefully through Andrew Farrall’s article on page 318 (interestingly he had . . . [Full text of this article]