Ultrasound Unsound? (Collection of info)

[Guest guest]

OK to share........

Sheri

Here is a link to an interesting article entitled Ultrasound -

weighing the propaganda against the facts. It was written by the

author of Ultrasound Unsound?

http://www.aims.org.uk/ultrasound.htm

I have seen other studies identifying negative side effects of

ultrasounds. One in particular found that as little as 1 ultrasound

could delay a child's speech by as much as 9 months. This study was

done in Canada, not the US. Other findings have suggested that the

increase in left-handedness among children who were scanned before

birth is linked to the ultrasound, which would show that the scan

does alter the brain in some way.

In the US, keep in mind that medical equipment does not undergo the

type of testing that a drug must go through to get on the market.

The scans used today are more invasive than the earlier ones, so it

will take a few more decades to really know the outcome. The recent

generations of children who have been scanned are in fact the guinea

pigs that will decide the safety of ultrasounds -- which have done

nothing to lower childbirth death rates, but have sent the C-section

rate dangerously high in the US.

The article above points out that the doppler, used to detect heart

tones on every prenatal visit unless you have a midwife (who uses a

fetalscope), may cause even more damage than the ultrasound.

-

*******

This is straight from the journal " Epidemiology " (Dec 2001), and

suggests that ultrasound is associated with mild brain damage.

http://www.mercola.com/2001/dec/19/ultrasound.htm

My boss, Dr. Mark Ellisman, is a world-renowned research scientist at UCSD

who specializes in imaging technologies for the study of brain structure

at the cellular level; he has personally found evidence of something

called " cavitation " , which is the " rapid formation and collapse of vapor

pockets " in fluid within tissue. When my wife and I became pregnant

he warned me to keep the ultrasound as short as possible. He knows what

he's talking about.

Here's a relevant quote:

" Free radical production in amniotic fluid and blood plasma by medical

ultrasound, probably following gaseous cavitation, has been detected

by Crum et al (1987). This provides a likely mechanism for the

origin of the DNA damage. Because of these confirmations and a report

by Ellisman et al (1987) that diagnostic levels of ultrasound may disrupt

myelination in neonatal rats, the need for regulation, guidance, and

properly controlled clinical studies is clear. "

http://www.aimsusa.org/ultrasnd.htm

Here's another useful link:

http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

So please don't consider this a benign procedure or an opportunity

to get some pretty pictures. and *please* don't get an extra

3D ultrasound, which is a very long scan, to get the 3D picture

of your baby. There is a real risk, and it's just not worth it.

Do a Google search on " +ultrasound +cavitation " or " +ultrasound +Ellisman "

and convince yourself.

Just my .02

Dave

*******

http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/ultrasound-risk.shtml

Weighing the Risks: What You Should Know about Ultrasound

By Buckley

Issue 102, September/October 2000

Ultrasonography was originally developed during World War II to detect

enemy submarines. Its use in medicine was pioneered in Glasgow, Scotland,

by Dr. Ian , who first used ultrasound to look at abdominal tumors,

and later babies in utero in the mid-1950s.1 The use of ultrasound in

pregnancy spread quickly.

In westernized healthcare systems, ultrasound, which may be offered to a

pregnant woman either to investigate a possible problem at any stage of

pregnancy or as a routine scan at around 18 weeks, has become almost

universal in pregnancy. In Australia, where I live, 99 percent of pregnant

women have at least one scan, paid for in part by our federal government,

through Medicare. In fact, from 1997 to 1998 Medicare paid out AU$39

million for obstetric scans, compared to AU$54 million for all other

obstetric Medicare costs. In the US, the American College of Obstetrics and

Gynecology (ACOG) estimates that 60 to 70 percent of pregnant women are

scanned, despite an official statement from ACOG that recommends against

routine ultrasound.2 At a cost of roughly $300 per procedure, this

represents a cost of approximately $70 to $80 million each year in the US.

Besides routine scans, ultrasound can be prescribed to investigate problems

such as bleeding in early pregnancy. Later in pregnancy, ultrasound can be

used when a baby is not growing, or when breech or twin births are

suspected. In such cases, the information gained from ultrasound can be

very useful in decision-making, and generally most professionals support

the use of ultrasound in this context.

It is such use of routine prenatal ultrasound (RPU) that is more

controversial, as this practice involves scanning all pregnant women in the

hope of improving the outcome for some mothers and babies. RPU seeks to

gain four main types of information:

Estimated due date. Dating a pregnancy is most accurate at early stages,

when babies vary the least in size. By contrast, at 18 to 20 weeks the

expected date of delivery is only accurate to within a week either way.

Some studies have suggested, however, that an early examination or a

woman's own estimation of her due date can be as accurate as RPU.3,4

Unsuspected physical abnormalities. While many women are reassured by a

normal scan, in fact RPU detects only between 17 percent and 85 percent of

the one in 50 babies that have major abnormalities at birth.5,6 A recent

study from Brisbane, Australia, showed that ultrasound at a major women's

hospital missed about 40 percent of abnormalities, many of which are

difficult or impossible to detect.7 The major causes of intellectual

disability, such as cerebral palsy and Down syndrome, or heart and kidney

abnormalities, are unlikely to be picked up on a routine scan.

There is also a small chance that the diagnosis of an abnormality is false

positive. In some instances, normal babies have been aborted because of

false-positive diagnoses.8 A United Kingdom survey found that one in 200

babies aborted for major abnormalities were wrongly diagnosed.9

In addition to false positives, there are also uncertain cases in which the

ultrasound image cannot be easily interpreted, and the outcome for the baby

is not known. In one study involving babies at higher risk of

abnormalities, almost 10 percent of scans were uncertain.10 This can create

immense anxiety for the woman and her family that may not be allayed by the

birth of a normal baby: in the same study, mothers with questionable

diagnoses still had associated anxiety three months after the child's

birth. Uncertain findings also lead to repeated and/or prolonged scans,

increasing the expense, inconvenience, and dosage of ultrasound.

In some cases of uncertainty, further tests such as amniocentesis are

recommended. In such situations, there may be up to two weeks wait for

results, during which time a mother must consider whether or not she will

terminate the pregnancy if an abnormality is found. Even mothers who

receive reassuring news have felt that this process has interfered with

their relationship with their babies.11

Location of the placenta. A very low-lying placenta (placenta previa) puts

mother and baby at risk of severe bleeding, and usually necessitates a

cesarean section. However, 19 out of 20 women who have placenta previa

detected on RPU will be needlessly worried, as the placenta will

effectively move upwards as the pregnancy progresses.12 Furthermore,

detection of placenta previa by RPU has not been found to be safer than

detection in labor.13

Multiple fetuses. Ultrasound can detect the presence of more than one baby

at an early stage of pregnancy, but this knowledge affords no documented

health advantages for mother or babies, and, without RPU, almost all

multiple pregnancies are discovered before birth.14

Why Are RPUs So Popular?

Supporters of RPU argue that availability of ultrasonic information leads

to better outcomes for mother and baby. While this seems logical,

researchers have not found evidence of significant benefit from RPU, and

the issue of the safety of ultrasound has not yet been resolved.

From a research perspective, the most significant benefit of RPU is a small

reduction in perinatal mortality, that is the number of babies dying around

the time of birth. This is, however, merely a statistical reduction since

perinatal mortality rates do not include deaths that occur before five to

six months' gestation. Often when a baby is found to have a fatal

abnormality on RPU, the pregnancy is terminated before this time, excluding

the baby from perinatal statistics.

RPU proponents presume that early diagnosis and termination is beneficial

to women and their families. However, the discovery of a major abnormality

on RPU can lead to very difficult decision-making. Some women who agree to

have an ultrasound are unaware that they may get information about their

baby that they do not want, as they would not contemplate a termination.

Other women can feel pressured to have a termination, or at least feel some

emotional distancing from their " abnormal " baby.15

Furthermore, there is no evidence that women who have chosen termination

are, in the long term, psychologically better off than women whose babies

have died at birth. In fact, there are suggestions that the reverse may be

true in some cases.16 In choosing a possible stillbirth over a termination,

women at least get social acknowledgment and support, and are able to

grieve openly. Where termination has been chosen, women are unlikely to

share their story with others and can experience considerable guilt and

pain from the knowledge that they themselves chose the loss.17

Another purported benefit of RPU is a reduced risk of being induced for

being " overdue, " because RPU dating gives a more certain estimated due

date. However, there is no clear evidence that this is true, as the

possibility of induction is more determined by hospital or doctor policy

than by the availability of RPU.19

Many supporters of RPU claim that it's a pleasurable experience, and

contributes to bonding between mother (and father, if he is present) and

baby. While it is true that it can be exciting to get a first glimpse of

one's baby in utero, there is no evidence that it helps attachment or

encourages healthier behavior toward the baby.20 For most women, bonding

occurs naturally when they begin to feel fetal movements at 16 to 20 weeks.

Reasons for Concern

Ultrasound waves are known to affect living tissues in at least two ways.

First, the sonar beam heats the highlighted area by about 1°C (2°F). This

is presumed to be insignificant, based on whole-body heating in pregnancy,

which seems to be safe up to 2.5°C (5°F).21 The second effect is

cavitation, where the small pockets of gas that exist within mammalian

tissue vibrate and then collapse. In this situation " ...temperatures of

many thousands of degrees Celsius in the gas create a wide range of

chemical products, some of which are potentially toxic. " 22 The significance

of cavitation in human tissue is unknown.

A number of studies have suggested that these effects are of real concern

in living tissues. The first study indicating problems analyzed cells grown

in the lab. Cell abnormalities caused by exposure to ultrasound were seen

to persist for several generations.23 Another study showed that, in newborn

rats (who are at a similar stage of brain development as humans at four to

five months in utero), ultrasound can damage the myelin that covers

nerves,24 indicating that the nervous system may be particularly

susceptible to damage from this technology. In 1999, an animal study by

Brennan and colleagues, reported in New Scientist,25 showed that exposing

mice to dosages typical of obstetric ultrasound caused a 22 percent

reduction in the rate of cell division, and a doubling of the rate of cell

death in the cells of the small intestine.

Studies on humans exposed to ultrasound have shown possible adverse

effects, including premature ovulation,26 preterm labor or miscarriage,27,

28 low birthweight,29 poorer condition at birth,30, 31 dyslexia,32 delayed

speech development,33 and less right-handedness,34, 35 a factor which in

some circumstances can be a marker of damage to the developing brain. In

addition, one Australian study showed that babies exposed to five or more

ultrasounds were 30 percent more likely to develop intrauterine growth

retardation (IUGR)--a condition that ultrasound is often used to detect.36

Two long-term randomized controlled trials, comparing exposed and unexposed

children's development at eight to nine years of age, found no measurable

effect from ultrasound.37, 38 However, as the authors note, intensities

used today are many times higher than in 1979 to 1981. A later report of

one of these trials39 indicated that scanning time was only three minutes.

More studies are obviously needed in this area, particularly in Doppler

ultrasound, where exposure levels are much higher, and in vaginal

ultrasound, where there is less tissue shielding the baby from the

transducer.

A further problem with studying ultrasound's effect is the huge range of

output, or dose, possible from a single machine. Modern machines can give

comparable ultrasound pictures using either a lower or a 5,000 times higher

dose,40 and there are no standards to ensure that the lowest dose is used.

Because of the complexity of machines, it is difficult to even quantify the

dose given in each examination.41 In the US, as in Australia, training is

voluntary (even for obstetricians), and the skill and experience of

operators varies widely.

In all the research done on ultrasound, there has been very little interest

in women's opinions of RPU, and the consequences of universal scanning for

women's experience of pregnancy. In her thoughtful book on prenatal

diagnosis, The Tentative Pregnancy,42 Barbara Katz Rothman suggests that

the large numbers of screening tests currently being offered to check for

abnormalities makes every pregnancy tentative until reassuring results come

back.

Ultrasound is not compulsory, and I suggest that each woman consider the

risks, benefits, and implications of scanning for her own particular

situation. If you decide to have a scan, be clear about the information

that you do and do not want to be told. Have your scan done by an operator

with a high level of skill and experience (usually this means performing at

least 750 scans per year) and say that you want the shortest scan possible.

If an abnormality is found, ask for counseling and a second opinion as soon

as practical. And remember, it's your baby and your choice.

Notes

1. Ann Oakley, " The History of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics, " Birth 13,

no. 1 (1986): 8-13.

2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, " Routine Ultrasound

in Low-Risk Pregnancy, ACOG Practice Patterns: Evidence-Based Guidelines

for Clinical Issues, " Obstetrics and Gynecology 5 (August 1997).

3. O. Olsen et al., " Routine Ultrasound Dating Has Not Been Shown to Be

More Accurate Than the Calendar Method, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104, no. 11

(1997): 1221-1222.

4. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, S. Nilsson, and U. Waldenstrom, " Comparison of

Ultrasonic Measurement of Biparietal Diameter and Last Menstrual Period as

a Predictor of Day of Delivery in Women with Regular 28-Day Cycles, "

Acta-Obstet-Gynecol-Scand 75, no. 5 (1993): 347-349.

5. B. G. Ewigman, J. P. Crane, F. D. Frigoletto et al., " Effect of Prenatal

Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome, " N Engl J Med 329, no. 12

(1993): 821-827.

6. C. A. Luck, " Value of Routine Ultrasound Scanning at 19 Weeks: A Four

Year Study of 8849 Deliveries, " British Medical Journal 34, no. 6840

(1992): 1474-1478.

7. F. Y. Chan, " Limitations of Ultrasound, " paper presented at Perinatal

Society of Australia and New Zealand 1st Annual Congress, Freemantle, 1997.

8. AIMS UK, " Ultrasound Unsound?, " AIMS UK Journal 5, no. 1 (Spring 1993).

9. I. R. Brand, P. Kaminopetros, M. Cave et al., " Specificity of Antenatal

Ultrasound in the Yorkshire Region: A Prospective Study of 2261 Ultrasound

Detected Anomalies, " Br J Obstet Gynaecal 101, no. 5 (1994): 392-397.

10. J. W. Sparling, J. W. Seeds, and D. C. Farran, " The Relationship of

Obstetric Ultrasound to Parent and Infant Behavior, " Obstet Gynecol 72, no.

6 (1988): 902-907.

11. A. s, " Women's Experience of Routine Prenatal Ultrasound, "

Healthsharing Women: The Newsletter of Healthsharing Women's Health

Resource Service (Melbourne, Australia) 5, no.s 3, 4 (December 1994-March

1995).

12. MIDIRS, Informed Choice for Professionals, Ultrasound Screening in the

First Half of Pregnancy: Is It Useful for Everyone? (UK: MIDIRS and the NHS

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996).

13. A. Saari-Kemppainen, O. Karjalainen, P. Ylostalo et al., " Ultrasound

Screening and Perinatal Mortality: Controlled Trial of Systematic One-stage

Screening in Pregnancy, " The Lancet 336, no. 8712 (1990): 387-391.

14. See Note 12.

15. See Note 11.

16. D. Watkins, " An Alternative to Termination of Pregnancy, " The

Practitioner 233, no. 1472 (1989): 990, 992.

17. See Note 12.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.

21. " American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine Bioeffects Report 1988, " J

Ultrasound Med 7 (September 1988): S1-S38.

22. Ibid.

23. D. Liebeskind, R. Bases, F. Elequin et al., " Diagnostic Ultrasound:

Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells, " Radiology 131, no.

1 (1979): 177-184.

24. M. H. Ellisman, D. E. Palmer, and M. P. Andre, " Diagnostic Levels of

Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination, " Experimental Neurology 98, no. 1

(1987): 78-92.

25. Brennan et al., " Shadow of Doubt, " New Scientist 12 (June 1999): 23.

26. J. Testart, A. Thebalt, E. Souderis, and R. Frydman, " Premature

Ovulation after Ovarian Ultrasonography, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 89, no. 9

(1982): 694-700.

27. See Note 13.

28. R. P. Lorenz, C. H. Comstock, S. F. Bottoms, and S. R. Marx,

" Randomised Prospective Trial Comparing Ultrasonography and Pelvic

Examination for Preterm Labor Surveillance, " Am J Obstet Gynecol 162, no. 6

(1990): 1603-1610.

29. J. Newnham, S. F. , C. A. et al., " Effects of Frequent

Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomised Controlled Trial, " The Lancet

342, no. 8876 (1993): 887-891.

30. S. B. Thacker, " The Case of Imaging Ultrasound in Obstetrics: A

Review, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92, no. 5 (1985): 437-444.

31. J. P. Newnham et al., " Doppler Flow Velocity Wave Form Analysis in High

Risk Pregnancies: A Randomised Controlled Trial, " Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98,

no. 10 (1991): 956-963.

32. C. R. Stark, M. Orleans, A. D. Havercamp et al., " Short and Long Term

Risks after Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Utero, " Obstet Gynecol 63

(1984): 194-200.

33. J. D. et al., " Case-control Study of Prenatal Ultrasonography

in Children with Delayed Speech, " Can Med Ass J 149, no. 10 (1993): 1435-

1440.

34. K. A. Salvesen, L. J. Vatten, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

Ultrasonography in Utero and Subsequent Handedness and Neurological

Development, " British Medical Journal 307, no. 6897 (1993) 159-164.

35. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Handedness, " Early

Human Development 50, no. 2 (1998): 233-245.

36. See Note 31.

37. K. A. Salvesen, L. S. Bakketeig, S. H. Eik-nes et al., " Routine

Ultrasonography in Utero and School Performance at Age 8-9 Years, " The

Lancet 339, no. 8785 (1992):85-89.

38. H. Kieler, G. Ahlsten, B. Haguland et al., " Routine Ultrasound

Screening in Pregnancy and the Children's Subsequent Neurological

Development, " Obstet Gynecol 91, no. 5 (1998): 750-756.

39. See Note 37.

40. H. B. Meire, " The Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound, " Br J Obstet

Gynaecol 94 (1987): 1121-1122.

41. K. J. W. , " A Prudent Approach to Ultrasound Imaging of the Fetus

and Newborn, " Birth 17, no. 4 (1990): 218-223.

42. Barbara Katz Rothman, The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis

Changes the Experience of Motherhood (New York: W. W. Norton, 1993).

For more information on ultrasound, see the following articles in past

issues of Mothering: " Ultrasound: More Harm Than Good? " no. 77; " The

Trouble with Ultrasound, " no. 57; " How Sound Is Ultrasound? " no. 34;

" Ultrasound, " no. 24; and " Diagnostic Ultrasound, " no. 19.

Buckley (40) is a New Zealand-trained GP (family MD), and still in

training as partner to . Mother of Emma (9), Zoe (6), and

(4), she is currently expecting her fourth baby and lives in Brisbane,

Australia, where she writes about pregnancy, birth, and parenting.

********

Shadow of a doubt

by Rob

ULTRASOUND SCANS can stop cells from dividing and make them commit suicide.

A

research team in Ireland say this is the first evidence that routine scans,

which have let doctors peek at fetuses and internal organs for the past 40

years, affect the normal cell cycle.

A team led by Brennan of University College Dublin gave 12 mice an

8-megahertz scan lasting for 15 minutes. Hospital scans, which reflect

inaudible sound waves off soft tissue to produce images on a monitor, use

frequencies of between 3 and 10 megahertz and can last for up to an hour

The researchers detected two significant changes in the cells of the small

intestine in scanned mice compared to the mice that hadn't been scanned.

Four

and a half hours after exposure, there was a 22 per cent reduction in the

rate of cell division, while the rate of programmed cell death or

" apoptosis "

had approximately doubled.

Brennan believes there will be similar effects in humans. " It has been

assumed for a long time that ultrasound has no effect on cells, " he says.

" We

now have grounds to question that assumption. "

Brennan stresses, however, that the implications for human health are

uncertain. " There are changes happening, but we couldn't say whether they

are

harmful or harmless, " he explains. The intestine is a very adaptable organ

that can compensate for alterations in the cell cycle, says Brennan.

It is possible that the sound waves damage the DNA in cells, delaying cell

division and repair. Brennan suggests that ultrasound might be switching on

the p53 gene which controls cell deaths. This gene, dubbed " the guardian of

the genome " , produces a protein that helps cells recognise DNA damage and

then either self-destruct or stop dividing.

Studies in the early 1990s by researchers at the University of Rochester in

New York and the Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland,

Washington, showed that tissue heating due to ultrasound can cause bleeding

in mouse intestines. Ultrasonographers now tune the power of scans to reduce

such heating.

But Brennan's work is the first evidence that scans create changes in cells.

" Our results are preliminary and need further investigation, " he says. The

team presented their results at the Radiology 1999 conference in Birmingham

last month and are now preparing them for submission to a peer-reviewed

journal.

Elliott, a researcher in clinical physics at the University of Glasgow,

thinks that Brennan's results are important and should be followed with

further studies. " If the conditions of his experiments really compare to the

clinical use of ultrasound, " he says, " we may have to review the current

safety limits. "

>From New Scientist, 12 June 1999

*******

Here are some excerpts about ultrasound from " What Doctors Don't Tell You "

by Lynne McTaggart. " No well controlled study has yet proved that

routine scanning of prenatal patients will improve the outcome of

pregnancy " - official statement from American College of Obstetrics &

Gynecology in 1984

Some studies show that, with ultrasound, you are more likely to lose your

baby. A study from Queen Charlotte's and Chelsea Hospital in London found

that women having doppler ultrasound were more likely to lose their babies

than those who received only standard neonatal care (17 deaths to 7).

A Norwegian study of 2,000 babies found that those subjected to routine

ultrasound scanning were 30% more likely to be left-handed than those sho

weren't scanned. An Australian study demonstraates that frequent scans

increased the proportion of growth-restricted babies by a third, resulting

in a higher number of small babies. Exposure to ultrasound also caused

delayed speech, according to Canadian researcher Professor .

The International Childbirth Education Association has maintained that

ultrasound is most likely to affect development (behavioral &

neurological), blood cells, the immune system, & a child's genetic makeup.

Besides the safety issue, there are considerable questions about accuracy.

There is a significant chance that your scan will indicate a problem when

there isn't one, or fail to pick up aa problem actually there. One study

found a " high rate " of false positives, 17% of the pregnant women scanned

were shown to have small-for-dates babies, when only 6% actually did - an

error rate of nearly one out of three. Another study from Harvard showed

that among 3,100 scans, 18 babies were erroneously labeled abnormal, and 17

fetuses with problems were missed.

********

this is from another list...

<<<According to Anne Frye, midwife and author of " Understanding Lab Work in

the Childbearing Year " (4th Ed.)p. 405

Doppler Devices: Many women do not realize that doppler fetoscopes are

ultrasound devices. (apparently, neither do many care providers. Time

after time, women are assured by doctors and even some nurse midwives

that a doppler is not an ultrasound device.) . . . .

Not well publicized for obvious reasons, doppler devices expose the fetus

to more powerful ultrasound than real time (imaging) ultrasound exams.

One minute of doppler exposure is equal to 35 minutes of real time

ultrasound. This is an important point for women to consider when

deciding between an ultrasound exam and listening with a doppler to

determine viability in early pregnancy. . . . .

If you have a doppler, put it aside and make a concerted effort to learn

to listen yourself! Save your doppler for those rare occasions when you

cannot hear the heart rate late into pushing or to further investigate

suspected fetal death. " copyright l990, Anne Frye, B.H. Holistic

Midwifery.

Personally, after 23 years of attending births, I would not permit a

doppler in my house if I were pregnant. You always know that something

is ultrasound because there will be " jelly " involved. If you want a

cheap listening device for the baby's heart just save the core from a

roll of toilet paper. Put one end on the lower belly and the other on

hubby's ear. If you want to know your baby is doing well, count the

fetal movements in a day. Starting at 9 a.m. count each time the baby

kicks. There should be l0 distinct movements by 3 p.m.

I think it's sad that some people will do anything to make a buck of the

huge pregnant market in North America. Please feel free to forward this

post on to any other lists.

Gloria Lemay, Vancouver BC

Wise Woman Way of Birth Courses

http://www.birthlove.com/pages/wise_woman.html>>>

********

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1751000/1751177.stm

This made me wonder what ultrasound does to developing babies if it

can have such a drastic effect on a testicle.

******

http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/prenatal-testing.shtml

Prenatal Testing and Informed Consent: Base Your Choices on the Evidence

By Peggy O'Mara

Issue 120, September/October 2003