Log In Sign Up

Lauren (Lash)


Forum: Home Birth

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to boards@justmommies.com.

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Home Birth LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
January 21st, 2008, 04:18 PM
*Jackie*
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think you are the only person I know who has an entire encyclopedia saved on their computer and that it's FACTUAL information, so I have a question for you. If you have any info, would you mind sending me some about U/S & their danger?

TIA
Reply With Quote
  #2  
January 23rd, 2008, 07:39 AM
Lash's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 17,710
Will do! Pm'ing now
__________________
"I will make it through this because it is for her and for her, I will do anything. I am not brave, I am not strong, I am just Rhiannon’s mom". Our TTC/Adoption/Pregnancy Blog: Jump Over The Rainbow

Reply With Quote
  #3  
January 23rd, 2008, 07:50 AM
Lash's Avatar Platinum Supermommy
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North Texas
Posts: 17,710
figured i might as well post it here as well.. I gathered most of this for a debate once. i'll start with the FDA statement
Quote:
Why All the Fuss?
Ultrasonic fetal scanning, from a medical standpoint, generally is considered safe if properly used when information is needed about a pregnancy. Still, ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature. Although there is no evidence that these physical effects can harm a fetus, the FDA says the fact that these effects exist means that prenatal ultrasounds can't be considered completely innocuous.

As more advanced ultrasound technologies (usually using higher ultrasound intensities) become available, greater numbers of expectant mothers and their families are requesting fetal keepsake videos and portraits for souvenirs. Sometimes these images may be made by people not well trained, or for longer exposure times and at higher levels than are usually used in medical situations. At the same time, the medical community is discouraging the use of ultrasound unless it is medically necessary.

Mel Stratmeyer, Ph.D., in the FDA's Office of Science and Technology, says that most animal studies have not identified any fetal harm with low-dose ultrasound exposure.

"But the issue of keepsake videos has to be that if there's even a possibility of potential risk, why take the chance?" Stratmeyer says. Animal studies have been performed during the last 30 years to investigate the effects of the procedure on a fetus, due to the increased use of obstetrical ultrasound in the 1970s. Human studies, however, are not feasible for the same reason that experts are cautious about casual ultrasound: It's too risky to subject unborn babies to any unknown effects.

"The problem with experimental research," Stratmeyer says, "is that you really need both animal and human studies to make more predictable outcomes." He adds that as technology advances and becomes more complex, the potential for physical effects to be identified in the future also increases.

However, a few studies, Stratmeyer says, suggest that exposure to diagnostic ultrasound during pregnancy may have an effect on human development, such as delayed speech in children.

Danica Marinac-Dabic, M.D., an epidemiologist in the FDA's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, says that the most consistent finding in the recent literature is a potential association between prenatal ultrasound exposure and subsequent left-handedness, especially among boys. At least three large follow-up studies involving thousands of school-age children in Sweden and Norway suggested such an association.

"Since ultrasound examinations in these studies took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s," says Marinac-Dabic, "and the fact that modern ultrasound equipment is capable of producing approximately eight times higher intensities than equipment used a decade ago, we continue to study the possible long-term effects of prenatal ultrasound in both animal and human epidemiologic studies."[/b]
http://www.fda.gov/FDAC/features/2004/104_images.html

http://www.mercola.com/2006/aug/22/for_the...ultrasounds.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2004/apr/14/p...ltrasounds.htm
Quote:
Parents Ignoring FDA Warnings on Prenatal Ultrasounds

Despite safety warnings from the FDA against getting ultrasounds from unregulated ultrasound centers, thousands are continuing to take advantage of this latest trend. Since the 1960s, ultrasounds have played a key role in prenatal care for millions of women and have proven when performed by licensed medical professionals to be a safe diagnostic tool. However, in the past two years dozens of unregulated ultrasound centers have opened around the United States without medical guidelines or standards.

With endearing names such as Fetal Fotos, Prenatal Peek and Womb With A View, these centers are charging about $200 a session and providing the parents with much clearer pictures, which include definite features such as chubby cheeks, hair and even muscular definition. These images are also giving the parents more than the two-dimensional scans most doctors use.

Even after the FDA closed down several of these ultrasound studios 10 years ago, a number of centers have resurfaced, prompting the FDA to take regulatory action such as sending out warning letters, injunctions, issuing fines or seizures. Doctors have expressed their concerns by citing the possibilities of things going wrong with untrained, unregulated scanners finding malformations and uninsured women relying on these centers rather than doctors. Another concern, although it hasn’t been confirmed, relates to possible future biological effects of the prenatal ultrasound.

Ultrasound is a type of energy and even at low levels studies have proven it can result in physical effects in tissue like sudden movements and an increase in temperature. For these reasons, experts said prenatal ultrasounds can’t be referred to as completely safe and some studies have shown that they may cause problems in human development such as delayed speech in children.

Statistics from the FDA showed that a total of 93 reports of problems resulted from all ultrasound machines, not just prenatal. Also, of those, 63 reported serious injury, 20 involved malfunctions with the machines and 10 could not be placed in any one category. While some doctors have shown enthusiasm for the higher definition ultrasounds, they have stated they realize they can be harmful and when used inappropriately can be very dangerous.[/b]
http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/19/ultrasound.htm -- this one is about brain damage
http://www.mercola.com/1999/archive/ultras...harm_unborn.htm

Quote:
New research has raised doubts over the safety of ultrasound scans used to view fetuses in the womb. Scientists have called for further research to determine whether safety limits should be reviewed for the tests, which are also used to check internal organs in children and adults. Since the early 1990s, when American researchers showed that ultrasound tissue heating can cause bleeding in mouse intestines, ultrasonographers tune the power of scans to reduce heating. The latest discovery, by scientists at University College Dublin, is the first to find that scans create changes in cells. Patrick Brennan, who led the research, said: "It has been assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on cells. We now have grounds to question that assumption."

The researchers gave 12 mice an eight megahertz scan lasting for 15 minutes. Hospital scans can last for up to an hour, using frequencies of between three and 10 megahertz. According to today's New Scientist, two significant changes in the cells of the small intestine were detected in scanned mice compared with unscanned mice. Four and a half hours after exposure, the rate of cell division had reduced by 22 per cent and the rate of programmed cell death had approximately doubled. Mr Brennan believes there will be similar effects in humans.

New Scientist ISSUE 1476 Thursday 10 June 1999[/b]
http://www.mercola.com/2003/feb/19/u...und_scans2.htm

Quote:
Mole (1986) comments "If exposure to ultrasound ... causes death of cells, then the practice of ultrasonic imaging at 16 to 18 weeks will cause loss of neurones [brain cells] with little prospect of replacement of lost cells ... The vulnerability is not for malformation but for maldevelopment leading to mental impairment caused by overall reduction in the number of functionning neurones in the future cerebral hemispheres."

Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown that possible adverse effects include:

Premature ovulation (Testart 1982)
Preterm labor or miscarriage (Lorenz, 1990; Saari-Kemppainen 1990)
Low birth weight (Newnham, 1993, Geerts 1996)
Poorer condition at birth (Thacker 1985; Newnham, 1991)
Perinatal death (Davies 1992)
Dyslexia (Stark 1984)
Delayed speech development (Campbell, 1993)
Less right-handedness (Salvesen 1993: Kieler 1998a, Salvesen 1999, Kieler 2001)
First published in Nexus magazine, vol9, no 6, Oct-Nov 2002[/b]
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/ultras...ge19dec01.shtml
http://www.douglassreport.com/dailydose/dd...dd20020604.html
http://www.mothering.com/articles/pregnanc...ound-risks.html -- VERY long article

I am only posing what the research says. I"m not making a statement about U/S or even saying I'd never have one.. I"m just stating what seems to be growing in the body of research

Dr Greene says this
Quote:
Studies in humans have never shown any behavioral changes. One randomized study of almost 3,000 Australian women who received normal ultrasounds at 18, 24, 28, 34, and 38 weeks gestation did demonstrate a lower birth weight of their children than the controls (Lancet, October 1993). An American study reviewed previous birth records of 13,000 pregnancies. This study looked specifically at the association of ultrasound exposure during pregnancy and the risk of low birthweight in the offspring. There was no indication of any adverse effect of prenatal ultrasound (American Journal of Perinatology, July 1994).

Another large study reviewed medical records and looked at rates of childhood cancer, neurologic problems, dyslexia, speech delay, left-handedness, and low birth weight in recipients of prenatal ultrasound. No associations were proven between ultrasound and any of these conditions, but there was insufficient data to reach a conclusion about left-handedness and low birth weight (Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, October 1995).

In 1996 we received the first report of actual tissue damage in human fetuses after a one hour ultrasound. A repeat ultrasound 24 hours later revealed changes in the cell membranes and in the intracellular structures of the early fetuses. These changes disappeared within 3 days (Chung Hua Fu Chan Ko Tsa Chih, March 1996).

In answer to your specific question, Jane, I have never seen in the medical literature any report of a connection between ultrasounds and ear infections (if you hear any more, please let me know!). We do know that ultrasounds are very safe (far safer than X rays). We also know that sound wave energy does affect living tissue, but the full implications of this remain to be discovered. The ultrasound machines in common use keep changing (more quickly than the studies of long-term effects can possibly keep up with), as new technology allows clearer and clearer ultrasound pictures. We must respect what we do not yet know. Still, used judiciously, prenatal ultrasound is a truly wonderful tool.[/b]
this one as well is about safety research and how many feel that it IS safe
http://www.ob-ultrasound.net/joewoo3x.html

There is more out there if you want it
__________________
"I will make it through this because it is for her and for her, I will do anything. I am not brave, I am not strong, I am just Rhiannon’s mom". Our TTC/Adoption/Pregnancy Blog: Jump Over The Rainbow

Reply With Quote
  #4  
January 23rd, 2008, 08:06 PM
*Jackie*
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you! And yea, I meant post not PM, sorry. LOL! Thanks again!!!!!! I've always loved your research!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0