What HMc isn't mentioning is that there are no valid reasons for the
prohibiting of the sales of the machines to the lay public, now is
there?

Radiation emitting, umm.. like a bird, or the human mouth, or a
television, or the telephone, or a hair-dryer, or maybe even just a
flashlight?  They are radiation emitting.  It's not ionizing radiation,
in fact, it's not even atomic radiation.  It's merely sound (which is
classified as radiation, only because it's SOMEWHERE distantly
positioned on the radio spectrum).

There haven't been any studies showing damage from ultra-sound
"radiation" in humans.  The studies that have been done (over the past
30 years) have shown that even on the fetus, there have been no studies
demonstrating adverse effects of any sort.  Granted, they are, through
fluid, uncomfortably loud, and can cause heating; but if there were any
bad side effects, they'd have been splashed over every newspaper, and
the like.

The reason the FDA and most doctors don't want these machines in
lay-hands is "interpretation" and faulting issues.  Let's say a guy
buys a machine, and let's his pregnant neice use it, and she sees that
the baby's ribs don't look right.  Well, that's not going to sound
right to doctors -- imagine the question : "how do you know what your
baby's ribs look like"?

It's the very same reason doctors stopped letting you video-tape the
sonogram and births.  You, in their eyes, have no reason to look at
information that only directly relates to you.

Hospitals and practices charge lots of money to operate a machine that
costs a mere 100k.  After about 200 uses, the machine is paid for.
Ahh, the other thing is that the practictioners claim "well, who's
going to interpret the results"...  Sorry guys, the majority don't care
about interprets, they just wanna look.

And they should be allowed to.

The FDA is a bloody joke, and everyone knows it.  They BAN ultrasounds
because they are actually safe.  They ALLOWED drugs which they KNEW had
serious problems.  All because SOLELY of profit motives.