Good day. I thought that this post was quite compelling, and the debate was worth signing up to add my two cents.
I would like to reply to the argument that ultrasound does not have detectable "birth defects" with a quote from INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY: ULTRASOUND - a text that dates back to 1982, published by the World Health Organization:
6.5.4. Summary There are many gaps in the data from human studies that prevent a meaningful risk assessment of ultrasonic exposure. It is therefore necessary to use the results of animal studies to test the hypothesis that similar effects may also occur in human subjects. Animal studies suggest that neurological, behavioural, developmental, immunological, haematological changes and reduced fetal weight can result from exposure to ultrasound.
There has been some research since that publication; however, I have not been convinced that there have been sufficient studies to say with certainty that prenatal sonograms are safe enough to justify the increase in number of sonograms prescribed for low-risk pregnancies. I agree that these concerns are reasonable, and these practices need review: Rise in ultrasounds prescribed for low-risk pregnancies needs review
I would also like to draw attention to the idea that subtle side effects could have insidious impacts on a child's development. For example, consider this animal study: Low-intensity ultrasound applied to the testes of aged rats
Previous studies from our laboratory have shown that low-intensity ultrasound applied to the scrotum of prepubertal rats causes a 62% increase in plasma testosterone, suggesting a possible stimulation of LH receptors and/or the enzymes controlling the steroidogenic process. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether low-intensity ultrasound has a stimulatory effect on the androgenic activity of the aged testes. In addition to plasma testosterone, LH, and FSH, the testicular spermatogenic status was also analyzed. Ultrasound applied to the scrotum of aged rats did not stimulate sperm production, which was significantly reduced compared to sexually mature animals, and failed to re-establish the steroidogenic testicular function, which was decreased by 74%, suggesting an inherent loss of gonadal steroidogenic competence.
The intensity of ultrasound used in that study was very low (20 mW/cm^2 is well beneath the 720 mW/cm^2 max ISPTA allowed in modern fetal scanning), and the duration did not match a typical sonogram schedule. However, the effect has been documented.
Is it possible that ultrasould's induction/suppression of gonadotropins/enzymes could potentially alter hormone levels significantly enough to promote a change in sex-related growth and development? It seems to have some effect akin to this in plants: Effects of ultrasound on cell growth and secondary metabolite production in plant cell cultures
This definitely deserves more research. I agree wholeheartedly with EL Williams' concerns, as do others in the field, apparently: David A Toms - Safety Issues in Fetal Ultrasound
I hope these links help stir the bee hive a little. To not be skeptic of lucrative, barely regulated medical procedures puts the onus of your child's health in the knowledge of the practitioner. Considering insufficient research has been done to prove that ultrasound is safe for fetal development, that knowledge is speculative. It does also seem that tangible profit vs unknown risks is not a solid grounds for proper risk vs benefit assessment.
