Anonymous wrote:Similar to the technicians themselves, I don't know the sound frequency or volume magnitudes of ultra sounds machines. However, pods of dolphins and whales become disoriented after being blasted with Navy sonar and they sometimes beach themselves usually resulting in death.

I can easily believe there could be damaging and even lethal magnitudes of sound volumes transmitted to fetuses which are surrounded by amnyotic fluid from ultrasound machines.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These slides are listed under "public comment" from a meeting and have no valid scientific value.

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2010/full-committee-mtg-slides-Oct22.shtml The "author" of these slides is a "writer" and "researcher" with no documentation on what her actual credentials are. She posted this article in 2006 on "Midwifery Today," with the description that she specializes in "Caroline Rodgers is a writer/researcher who has a special interest in the impact medical diagnostic imaging has on human biology."

It sounds like she likes to cherry pick "facts" together to support her hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, is a pot-stirring cross-posting bitch. She already posted in expectant mothers forum. So pregnant ladies, keep getting your ultrasounds.

Thank you! I skimmed them on my phone and thought they were from the IACC and was sending them to my husband who works for the exposure risk part of the EPA. Yes - they do get some crazy, unscientific comments from the public but usually it is chemical companies trying to slow down regulations.

Anonymous wrote:I say its flat screen televisions. Or cellphones. Or bagged lettuce. Or proliferation of batteries. Or smoke detectors. Wifi. The Internet. Communications satellites. Shoulder belts in cars. The increasing length of postseason okay in professional sports. Global warming. Bottled water. Fluoride. Sunscreen. Music videos.

Anonymous wrote:These slides are listed under "public comment" from a meeting and have no valid scientific value.

http://iacc.hhs.gov/events/2010/full-committee-mtg-slides-Oct22.shtml The "author" of these slides is a "writer" and "researcher" with no documentation on what her actual credentials are. She posted this article in 2006 on "Midwifery Today," with the description that she specializes in "Caroline Rodgers is a writer/researcher who has a special interest in the impact medical diagnostic imaging has on human biology."

It sounds like she likes to cherry pick "facts" together to support her hypothesis. See here on dental x-rays and dementia: http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/napa/Comments/cmtach34.pdf

OP, is a pot-stirring cross-posting bitch. She already posted in expectant mothers forum. So pregnant ladies, keep getting your ultrasounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is absurd, and it is clear exactly here in the presentation:

Autism surveys and studies have found the following groups of women are at higher risk of bearing children with autism:
? Mothers who receive first-trimester care
? Mothers with higher educations
? Mothers with private health insurance
? Older mothers
Only increased exposure to prenatal ultrasound can explain all of the above

What?? I can rattle off dozens of reasons why the incidence of autism in those groups would be higher, primarily because they are all correlated to SES.

Interestingly, in certain developing countries, autism is considered a "disease" of rich people.

Anonymous wrote:This is absurd, and it is clear exactly here in the presentation:

Autism surveys and studies have found the following groups of women are at higher risk of bearing children with autism:
? Mothers who receive first-trimester care
? Mothers with higher educations
? Mothers with private health insurance
? Older mothers
Only increased exposure to prenatal ultrasound can explain all of the above

What?? I can rattle off dozens of reasons why the incidence of autism in those groups would be higher, primarily because they are all correlated to SES.