View Single Post
Old 12-05-2012, 11:00 PM   #25
RunawayBunny's Avatar
Registered Users
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3,216
Originally Posted by babyrosie

Well the FDA would recommend to limit U/S exposure because it is unethical to test on pregnant women/unborn children. Therefore they do not do trials using varying amounts of u/s exposure to see if it will cause defects or something. So they say to limit it because they can not say for sure if there would be any effects from more exposure.
I am not sure this is entirely true in this situation. There are plenty of clinical studies done where some babies have no u/s and others have 2 or more. I think the FDA recommends limiting u/s to medical use (with certain frequencies and length) is because certain frequencies and lengths of u/s have shown damage in lab animals. They are also against keepsake ultrasounds because the person performing the u/s doesnt have to have any training in proper use (not just that they can give bad advice, but use the u/s for too long or with the wrong frequency). And lastly, none (or very few?) of the clinical studies are recent and use the current frequency used today so that adds a level of unknown risk. The only clinical effect I could find was an increase in male-non-righthandedness which does suggest that its altering the brain in some way. All this was certainly enough to talk me out of the gender scan I wanted done at 17 weeks, but not the anatomy scan. I also wish my RE had not been quite so liberal in the number of u/s she performed in my early weeks. But I will take an unknown risk that is not life threatening if it can mitigate the risk, even a "small" one, for something that is life threatening.

That's all you can do, OP, is decide what risks you are ok taking and which you aren't.

Last edited by RunawayBunny; 12-05-2012 at 11:02 PM.
RunawayBunny is offline   Reply With Quote