Ultrasound was used multiple times for both my wife's pregnancies. At the time I remember thinking, is this really safe? In this guest post Jeanice Barcelo reveals the science behind ultrasound pregnancy risks.
For the past several decades, parents have been repeatedly told that prenatal ultrasound is “just sound waves” and therefore, “perfectly safe” for use during pregnancy.
Expectant mothers have been encouraged (and even pressured) by their care providers to undergo multiple ultrasound scans, as well as repeated exposure to Doppler fetal heart monitors, which are also ultrasound-based.
Many babies born today have been exposed to ultrasound numerous times, with some sources saying that a woman with a normal, low-risk pregnancy can be exposed to as many as 10-17 scans per pregnancy.
Moreover, some mothers and babies have been exposed to ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring for hours or even days during hospital birth, yet this type of extended exposure has been documented to cause fetal death and ultrasound is being repeatedly linked to fetal demise.
Ultrasound is Not Just Sound Waves
Ultrasound pregnancy risks are real. Despite medical assurances of safety, ultrasound is not just sound waves. In fact, it is non ionizing radiation, and many thousands of studies have confirmed that this type of radiation is harmful.
Children, and especially developing babies in the womb, are at great risk from exposure to non-ionizing technologies since children's brains and bodies absorb more radiation, and the bone marrow in their head absorbs up to 10x as much radiation as does that of adults.
In truth, all living things are in danger from exposure to non-ionizing technologies and this includes radiation from cell towers, cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, wifi devices, and 5G technology which is being introduced. Because these devices are now ubiquitous in our society—and because children are now being exposed 24/7 (even while in the womb)—it is important for parents to understand the facts about non-ionizing technologies so that they can protect themselves and their children from harm.
A Single Exposure to Ultrasound Causes DNA Damage Similar to 250 Chest X-Rays
Ultrasound is listed on the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a section entitled “Radiation Emitting Products.”4 There we are told that “ultrasound… is based on non-ionizing radiation, so it does not have the same risks as X rays…”
However, study after study has confirmed that ultrasound does, in fact, produce similar biological damage to that caused by X rays.
Scientists have known this for at least 100 years. In one study (Liebeskind, et al, 1981), researchers concluded that a single exposure to ultrasound produced cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest x rays. Damage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond.
Other studies have documented DNA shearing, single and double strand breaks, chromosome rearrangements and DNA uncoiling, deformities and mutations in offspring, as well as the complete deactivation of genetic material within sonicated cells.
The damage being caused by ultrasound is very far reaching and is extensively documented in my book, “The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation – Part 1.”
(Ultrasound should not be confused with CT scans or CAT scans. CT scan radiation is also dangerous.)
Ultrasound Causes Growth Restriction and Low Birth Weight
In both human and animal studies, ultrasound exposure in utero has been repeatedly shown to cause intrauterine growth restriction and low birth weight. Medical researchers at the FDA have known about this for decades, with an FDA spokesperson acknowledging in the early 1990s that:
“We’ve been looking at a population of children – about 2,000 children – about half of whom have been irradiated [with ultrasound] in the Denver, Colorado area. And the indication there is that these children who have been irradiated have a reduced birth weight.”26
Despite this knowledge, in 1991, the FDA decided to increase the maximum allowable output levels for obstetrical ultrasound machines at least eightfold, with some sources saying that output levels increased 10 to-15-fold over the next few years.
This FDA action ensured that babies born after 1991 would be exposed to even more radiation as compared to those born in the 1970s and 80s, hence these children have a greater risk of radiation-induced genetic and/or brain damage that can lead to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.
Below is a graph rendered by Jim West showing the drop in newborn birth weight after the FDA’s action.
Ultrasound Scans and Fetal Heart Monitoring Have No Benefit in Terms of Neonatal Outcome
Significantly, both fetal heart monitoring and ultrasound scans have been repeatedly shown to have no benefit in terms of neonatal outcome.
On the contrary, they are causing harm. Babies exposed to these technologies have an increased chance of being forcibly ejected from the womb before they are ready to be born through the induction of labor, as well an increased chance of cesarean birth, and spending time in neonatal intensive care.
Despite clear evidence that fetal heart monitoring is not having any benefit and is only causing harm, as of 2002, more than 85% of birthing American women and their babies were forced to endure ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring during hospital birth.
Medical professionals have known for decades that elevated maternal and/or fetal heating can lead to birth defects in human offspring. That is why pregnant women are often told to avoid getting into hot tubs or taking hot baths, especially during early pregnancy, for fear this might lead to heating of the amniotic fluid, resulting in birth defects, brain damage, neurological damage, etc.
Yet despite this common knowledge, the medical establishment is routinely and excessively exposing pregnant women to ultrasonic technology that emits both DNA-damaging radiation and is known to cause dangerous levels of heating (including heating of the amniotic fluid).
Both ultrasound scans and Doppler fetal heart monitors have been repeatedly documented to cause extreme localized temperatures, that can lead to neurological defects, spina bifida, deformations in the head and brain, microcephaly, heart irregularities and defects, and other serious harm.
Ultrasonically-induced fetal growth retardation (documented in literally dozens of studies as mentioned above) may be due, in part, to restrictions in bone growth caused by bones absorbing excess radiation heat.
“Bone is extremely sensitive to ultrasound heating: the skull of a third-trimester fetus heats up 50 times more quickly than brain tissue when exposed to ultrasound. This means that brain structures lying close to the skull, such as the pituitary and the hypothalamus, are especially at risk of secondary heating.”49
When fetal skull bones are heated by ultrasound, the brain matter closest to the bones is being heated as well. This heating can contribute to the myriad brain abnormalities we are seeing in children today, including children with autism.
Ultrasound Damage May Not Be Apparent at Birth
Prenatal life is a fragile time, especially during the first trimester when cells are rapidly dividing and multiplying. DNA-damaged cells can quickly replicate during this time, leaving babies susceptible to both mutated genetic development and/or the development of cancer, tumors, or other illnesses later on.
Damage from ultrasound may not be apparent at birth since an ultrasound beam can penetrate deep into the body without leaving any sign of damage on the skin.
However, due to ultrasound’s extreme heating (and cavitation) effects, even though babies may appear normal and healthy at birth, the internal contents of their bodies (i.e., DNA, blood, bones, brain, heart, reproductive organs, etc.), are likely to have been cooked, scrambled and/or severely disturbed from exposure to ultrasound in utero.
As with all forms of radiation damage, the effects may not become apparent for many years.
Ultrasound Interferes with Fertility
Radiation-induced infertility is one of the many forms of ultrasonic damage that may not become apparent for years after exposure.
Nonetheless, ultrasound-induced reproductive damage is extremely well-documented, and the medical establishment has known, since at least 1955, that ultrasound can have deleterious effects on the menstrual cycle, decrease ovulation rates, cause problems with embryo implantation, and trigger structural alterations in ovarian and testicular tissue.
The latter may be contributing to the rising rates of genital defects we are seeing since the 1970s, when ultrasound was first mainstreamed in obstetrics.
“One of the most popular non-medical uses of ultrasound… is to determine the sex of the baby. Could this have a connection to the increase in birth defects involving the genitals and urinary tract? The March of Dimes says that these types of birth defects affect ‘as many as 1 in 10 babies,’ adding that ‘specific causes of most of these conditions is unknown.’”63
Ultrasound Stops Sperm Production and “Cooks” the Vas Deferens of Adult Males
The medical establishment is well aware that ultrasound stops sperm production. This is why doctors are currently using it as a form of male contraception.
Two 15 minute blasts to the adult male scrotum ensures a minimum of six months infertility, and infertility can be permanent.
If infertility is temporary, the quality of new sperm is in question, since ultrasound can cause genetic defects in sperm (and eggs) and contribute to the myriad de novo mutations we are seeing in children today, including children with autism.
Moreover, ultrasonic irradiation is being used to induce vasectomies in adult men since it can heat the vas deferens to over 50C [122°F], killing cells, causing them to coagulate and thereby block the tubes that carry sperm to the penis.
But if ultrasound can stop sperm production and cook the reproductive organs of adult men, shouldn’t we be concerned about what is happening to developing babies when they direct that beam at the genitals to discover the sex of the child?
Infertility Skyrocketing in the U.S. and Elsewhere
Male infertility is epidemic in the western world, with men now producing 60% less sperm than they did in 1975 (interesting timing indeed). The link between cell phone radiation and infertility cannot be ignored either.
Female fertility is also in steep decline and the U.S. is currently experiencing its lowest birth rate ever recorded since 1909 when the government first began tracking fertility.
Radiation exposure in utero is no doubt playing a huge role in this terminal decline. Exposure to cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, etc., is also contributing to an existential fertility and genetic crisis, prompting British physicist, Barrie Trower, to predict that within 50-60 years, we are going to bear witness to a radiation-induced disaster that will leave only one in eight children healthy.
Ultrasound Pregnancy Risks—What Can We Do?
It is time for us to acknowledge the dangers of non-ionizing technologies, including ultrasound during pregnancy. Entire genetic bloodlines are at risk because of our addiction to radiation-emitting devices—and we are not the only species that is being harmed.
It is imperative for us to make changes in our lives now in order to minimize exposure. These changes should be made as quickly as possible but at a pace that is manageable without creating overwhelm. Below are some simple suggestions.
# Say NO to Harmful Medical Interventions like Prenatal Ultrasound
The first and most obvious thing we can do is say NO to harmful medical interventions like ultrasonography during preganancy and ultrasonic fetal heart monitoring. This is absolutely necessary if we are to protect the incoming children and the reproductive and genetic integrity of our bloodlines.
# Seek Guidance about Radiation Detox
For those concerned about how much radiation their child may have been exposed to, seek guidance regarding safe radiation detox.
One thing that is highly recommend is a radiation detox bath once or twice per week.
To help with the detox, add sea salt, baking soda, clay (I use this one), organic yellow dock root, and epsom salt. Bath should last approximately 20-30 minutes. Please do not add hot water once you and/or your child are in the tub. Simply make the water as warm as possible at the beginning of the bath and then soak. Rinse off in the shower afterward.
# Diet and Supplements – Please Do Your Own Research to Confirm Safety for Children
The consumption of sea vegetables (especially kelp), cilantro, and high-quality iodine is recommended. Certain supplements can help pull heavy metals and/or radiation out of the body including sacred clay, clean chlorella, modifilan, and zeolites. Non GMO Vitamin C and Amla are radioprotective. Vitamin D3, K2, E and Magnesium (transdermal and/or Magnesium L Threonate) are also recommended.
Dr. Robert Morse makes an herbal tincture called “No-Glo” that is very good. I also recommend his lymphatic system tonic, kidney/bladder tonic, blood tonic and chem/metal detox.
Essential Oils can also be helpful but never put oils directly on the skin as they can burn. Always use a carrier oil like organic coconut or olive oil and mix with a drop or two of essential oil before rubbing into the skin. Rosemary oil helps to repair radiation-damaged brain cells. Sacred Frankincense oil (bosweilla sacra) from Young Living has been documented to kill cancer cells in six weeks.
# Changes to the Home
One of the most important things we can do to protect ourselves from exposure to radiation is to create a clean environment in our home. Below are some suggestions about how to do this.
1. Turn off and unplug all wireless devices in your home at night and when not in use. This includes cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, WiFi routers, smart TVs, etc. This one simple step is extremely important, especially during sleep, since our bodies will attempt to repair radiation damage while we sleep, but we must be in a clean environment in order for the healing to occur. If our bodies are chronically exposed to radiation 24/7, there is no chance of repair and illness will ensue in due time.
2. Purchase an EMF meter so that you can measure the radiation levels in your home and elsewhere. You need an EMF meter that is accurate, fairly inexpensive (beware there are some very cheap meters on the market which are of very poor quality and give misleading readings), and very easy to use.
3. Get rid of the WiFi in your house and use ethernet connected devices instead. This is actually very easy to do, especially if you are receiving your internet through a cable company.
4. Get rid of all cordless phones in your house and replace them with CORDED telephones. Corded phones are very inexpensive and available on Amazon and elsewhere. Keep in mind that cordless DECT phone radiation is very dangerous, with radiation levels in the red near the base. Never keep a cordless phone by your bed or near your head. Unplug all cordless phones at night until you can get them out of the house for good.
5. If you use a smart TV, consider purchasing ethernet adapters for your particular model and turning off the WIFI. WIFI radiation is a growing problem with many routers now emiting at increasingly high power levels and many routers now emit at two frequencies.
6. Get rid of all wireless baby monitors immediately. Do not delay. These monitors are extremely dangerous. Children’s lives are at risk from exposure to these technologies as they pump out excessive levels of pulsed microwave radiation.
7. If you have a smart meter on your home, have it removed as quickly as possible. Be firm with your utility company and do not back down. Repeat over and over (if necessary) that you do not consent to having any radiation-emitting device on your home and you are prepared to hold them liable for every day they leave that device on your house. See www.InPowerMovement.com for info on how to hold them liable.
Use these tips to reduce your EMF exposures and think twice before consenting to ultrasound during pregnancy.
Many thanks to Jeanice Barcelo for this guest post.
Author Bio: Jeanice Barcelo is a medical researcher, birth activist and author.
Based on the book, “The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non Ionizing Radiation – Part 1,” available at www.BirthofaNewEarth.com.
Sources and Bibliography
1 Jennifer Margulis, 17 Scans In One Pregnancy? Why These Scientists Warn Ultrasound Could Harm Developing Brain, Reset.me, Sep 3, 2015.
2 R. Shoji, et al., An Experimental Study on the Effect of Low-Intensity Ultrasound on Developing Mouse Embryos, J Faculty Science, 1971, and R. Shoji, et al., Experimental Studies on the Effect of Ultrasound on Mouse Embryos, Teratology, 1972, and T. Shimizu, An Experimental Safety Study of Mice Exposed to Low Intensity Ultrasound, 1973.
3 Saari-Kemppainen et al., Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancy, The Lancet, 1990.
7 J. Wiart, et al., Analysis of RF exposure in the head tissues of children and adults, Phys Med Biol, 2008.
8 A. Christ, et al., Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users, Phys Med Biol, 2020.
9 Sebastopol, CA: Consider The Plights of Those Living At An Attractive and Well-Managed Affordable Housing Project — 250 to 500 feet from a Macro Cell Tower, Scientists For Wired Technology, 2018.
10 L. Hardell, et al., Case–control study on cellular and cordless phones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000–2003, Neuroepidemiology, 2005.
11 D.L. Davis, et al., Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen, Pathophysiology, Apr 2013.
13 Prof. Tom Butler, On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Smartphone and WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation, University College, Cork Ireland.
14 M.R. Sikov, at al., Effects of prenatal exposure to ultrasound, in Advances in the Study of Birth Defects: Teratological Testing, T.V.N. Persaud (ed), University Park Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 1979.
15 Earl H. Newcomer, et al., Chromosomal and Nuclear Aberrations Induced by Ultrasonic Vibrations, American Journal of Botany, February 1949.
16 D. Liebeskind, et al., Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound, Radiology, Feb. 1981.
17 D. Liebeskind, et al., Diagnostic Ultrasound: Time Lapse and Transmission Electron Microscopic Studies of Cells Isonated In Vitro, Br. J.Cancer, 1982.
18 John Thacker, The Possibility of Genetic Hazard from Ultrasonic Radiation, Current Topics in Radiation Research Quarterly, 8, 1973.
19 Ri. Kubota, et al., Double‐Strand Breaks in Genome‐Sized DNA Caused by Ultrasound, Chemphyschem, April 19, 2017.
20 J. Thacker, The Possibility of Genetic Hazard from Ultrasonic Radiation, Current Topics in Radiation Research Quarterly, 8, 1973.
21 Dr. P. Gariaev, as posted at A.K. Loskotová, Ultrazvuk poškozuje DNA, odhaluje studie / Doporučuji, Karolinaloskotova.blog.cz, Nov 13, 2018 as translated from Czech at google.translate.com.
22 J Barcelo, The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation – Part 1, Kindle Direct, 2019.
23 N. Akamatsu, et al., Ultrasound irradiation effects on pre-implantation embryos, Acta Obstet Gynaecol Jpn, 1981; The effects of pulsed ultrasound on pre-implantation embryos, Special Edition: Studies on the Safety of Pulsed Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of the Fetus During Pregnancy, 1981.
24 R.M. Moore, Effects of sonic radiation on growth and development, Am J Epidemiology, 1982.
25 FDA Contract Report on Assessment of Ultrasound Exposure During Gestation and Neonatal Growth, FDA Contract No. 223-83-6023, John Hopkins University, February 1985.
26 Dr. C. Phillips, Ultrasound Research, Youtube.com, Nov 28, 2012.
27 J. West, Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A) (Kindle Location 802).
28 T. Nace, Conflicts of Interest: Understanding the Safety Issues Around Prenatal 3D Ultrasound, Vaclib.org, June 2, 2005.
29 Ultrasound from Conception to 10+0 Weeks of Gestation, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Scientific Impact Paper No. 49, Mar 2015, citing G ter Haar, editor, The Safe Use of Ultrasound in Medical Diagnosis. 3rd ed. London: British Institute of Radiology; 2012.
31 Jim West, Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A), (Kindle Locations 774-775).
32 N. Berlatsky, The Most Common Childbirth Practice in America Is Unnecessary and Dangerous, NewRepublic.com, August 13, 2015.
33 A. Moritz, www.ener-chi.com.
34 M. Kegel, Electronic Fetal Monitoring — No Benefits, Plenty of Harm, CerebralPalsyNewsToday.com, Decdember 9, 2016.
35 G.R. Saade, OBGPathways.com.
36 Beverly Lawrence Beech, Ultrasound: Weighing the Propaganda Against the Facts, Midwifery Today, Autumn 1999, citing J.P. Newnham, MD, et al., Effects of frequent ultrasound during pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial, The Lancet, October 1993.
37 C. Rodgers, http://midwiferytoday.com/articles/ultrasoundrodgers.asp
38 Dr. C. Phillips, Ultrasound Research, Youtube.com, November 28, 2012. showing video footage from Fetal Effects of Ultrasound: A Growing Controversy, aired on Cable News Network in 1993 after the research findings were reported in the Journal of Nurse Midwifery.
39 E.H. Newcomer, et al., Chromosomal and Nuclear Aberrations Induced by Ultrasonic Vibrations, American Journal of Botany, Feb 1949, citing C.H. Allen, et al., Some biological effects of intense high frequency airborne sound, Jour Acoustic Soc Amer, 1948.
40 Shauna Ann Walker, The Dangers of Ultrasounds: Is Your Doctor Lying When They Say There is No Risk?, Yahoo! Contributor Network, January 30, 2007.
41 S.B. Barnett and G. Gossoff, Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound, New York : The Parthenon Pub. Group, 1998. Also see S.B. Barnett, et al, The sensitivity of biological tissue to ultrasound, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1997.
42 D. Blake, Ultrasound: Autism, Agriculture, and a Future Tool for Treating Neurological Diseases, The University of New Carolina at Pembroke, undw.edu, citing S.B. Barnett, Intracranial temperature elevation from diagnostic ultrasound, Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 2001.
43 M.R. Sikov, at al., Effects of prenatal exposure to ultrasound, in Advances in the Study of Birth Defects: Teratological Testing, T.V.N. Persaud (ed), 1979.
44 J. West, Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A), harvoa. Kindle Edition.
45 R.A. Wanner, et al., Comparison of the effects of radiation and hyperthermia on prenatal retardation of brain growth of guinea-pigs, British Journal of Radiology, January 1983.
46 E.N. Harvey, The Effect of High Frequency Sound Waves on Heart Muscle and other Irritable Tissues, Amer Jour Physiol, 1929.
47 H.D. Stewart, et al., Compilation of Reported Biological Effects Data and Ultrasound Exposure Levels, J Clin Ultrasound, Mar-Apr 1985, citing D.B. Rivers, et al., Changes in the rate of development of chick embryos subject to diagnostic pulsed ultrasound, Proc 17th Ann Meeting of Am Inst Ultrasound in Med, 1972.
48 H. Shankar, et al., Potential Adverse Ultrasound-related Biological Effects: A Critical Review, Anesthesiology, November 2011, citing C. Doody, et al, In vitro heating of human fetal vertebra by pulsed diagnostic ultrasound, Ultrasound Med Biol, 1999, and J.L. Drewniak, et al., In vitro ultrasonic heating of fetal bone, J Acoust Soc Am, 1989, and E.L. Carstensen, et al., Ultrasonic heating of the skull, J Acoust Soc Am, 1990.
49 Ted Nace, Conflicts of Interest: Understanding the Safety Issues Around Prenatal 3D Ultrasound, AsQuestions.org, June 2, 2005.
50 Ultrasound dangers to the developing fetus. Part I, EMF Facts Consultancy, EMFFacts.com, August 6, 2009, citing a study done by Dr. Stan Barnett, Section Manager of the CSIRO’s National Measurement Laboratory’s Division of Radiophysics, and author of the 1994 report “Status of research on biological effects and safety of electromagnetic radiation: telecommunications frequencies.”
51 Shauna Ann Walker, The Dangers of Ultrasounds: Is Your Doctor Lying When They Say There is No Risk?, Yahoo! Contributor Network, January 30, 2007.
52 Powerwatch Childhood Cancer Articles, Chapter 4: Childhood Cancer and Non-Ionizing Radiation.
54 A.D. Spearman, MD and P. Williams MD, Supraventricular Tachycardia in Infancy and Childhood, Pediatric Annals, 2014.
55 Wen-Yen Chai, et al., Magnetic-Resonance Imaging for Kinetic Analysis of Permeability Changes during Focused Ultrasound-Induced Blood-brain Barrier Opening and Brain Drug Delivery, Journal of Controlled Release, October 28, 2014.
56 E. H. Newcomer, et al., Chromosomal and Nuclear Aberrations Induced by Ultrasonic Vibrations, American Journal of Botany, February 1949, citing C.H. Allen, et al., Some biological effects of intense high frequency airborne sound, Jour Acoustic Soc Amer, 1948.
59 Diagnostic Ultrasound Imaging in Pregnancy, Report of a Consensus Development Conference Sponsored by the National Institute of Child Healthy and Human Development, the Office of Medical Applications of Research, the Division of Research Resources, and the Food and Drug Administration, February 6-8, 1984, citing D. Kamocsay, Effects of Ultrasonics on the Testicles – Experimental Studies in White Rats, Arztliche Forschung, 1955, and M.S. Fahim, et al, Heat in Male Contraception (Hot Water 60 C, Infrared, Microwave, and Ultrasound), Contraception, 1975.
60 Ultrasound from Conception to 10+0 Weeks of Gestation, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Scientific Impact Paper No. 49, March 2015.
61 E. Siegel, et al., Cellular attachment as a sensitive indicator of the effects of diagnostic ultrasound exposure on cultured human cells, Radiology, October 1979.
62 W.D. O’Brien, et al., Morphological changes to mouse testicular tissue from in vivo ultrasonic irradiation (preliminary report), Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 1979.
63 Caroline Rodgers, “Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism,” Midwifery Today, Issue 80, Winter 2006, citing “Genital and Urinary Tract Defects.” March of Dimes.
64 T. Keiser, Therapeutic Ultrasound Effectively Stops Sperm Production, Could be Used As Contraceptive for Men, DailyTech.com, Jan 30, 2012.
65 J. Welsh, Future Male Birth Control May Zap Sperm with Sound Waves, LiveScience.com, January 29, 2012.
66 E. Lissner, “Ultrasound male contraceptive, overlooked for decades, confirmed to work,” January 29, 2012,
67 J. West, 50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography. harvoa. Kindle Edition citing Zhuang Qing Song, Effects of Diagnostic Ultrasonic Wave on the Ultrastructures of the Human Fetus Testicles, 2008.
68 Dr. C. Phillips, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8szqgtX_GQ
69 Kathleen Doheny, New Clues on Genetic Causes of Autism, WebMD.com, June 8, 2011.
70 Having ‘the snip' without the chop, News.BBC.co.uk, Jan 10, 2002.
71 Doctors Shocked to Discover Sperm Counts in Western Men Plummeted Nearly 60%, TheAntiMedia.org, July 28, 2017.
72 R. Rettner, US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low: What's Behind the Decline?, LiveScience.com, May 17, 2018.
73 B. Trower, https://youtu.be/DLVIbPtNrVo
74 http://www.radiationdangers.com/effects-on-nature/mammals-birds-insects-and-plants-harmed-by-radiation-emanating-from-wi-fi-cellphone-towers-microwave-transmitters-etc/ citing Reynard Loke, https://www.salon.com/2018/07/13/our-cellphone-addiction-is-turning-wireless-tech-into-an-invisible-weapon-that-is-destroying-wildlife_partner/
78 Dr. Suhail, https://youtu.be/QUYVsu1JiTU
79 Acousticom 2, https://www.amazon.com/Acousticom-Pocket-Sized-EMFields-One-Button-0-2-8-0GHz/dp/B079XYR9YK/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=acousticom+2&qid=1556575335&s=gateway&sr=8-6
80 Sarah, Get Those Wireless Baby Monitors OUT of the Nursery!, TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com, July 12, 2017.
81 Image courtesy of Dr. Om Gandhi, University of Utah, 1996, IEEE Publication
Are there only dangers concerning medical appliances which use ultrasound, or is this also applicable on devices (you can buy almost everywhere), which use ultrasound to scare pests like mice?
I’m elated to see my friend, Jeanice Barcelo sharing her excellent research about The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound – and the Dangers of Non-ionizing Radiation here! BRAVO, Jeanice!
What about ultrasound for other purposes, such as therapy on tendinitis?? I have been getting ultrasound on my wrist for 10 minutes twice a week for the past 4 months. Should I be concerned?? Thank you for your response!
Dr. Michaels said,
I routinely advise female patients to avoid mammography and opt instead for breast ultrasound scans. Now I’m concerned about this, as well. Can you help with additional information.
Patricia Ormsby said,
This is the first time I’ve heard anything negative about ultrasound. I assumed it was the most benign of the various diagnostic tools at the doctor’s office. If I go to a doctor, they will insist on one or another. I refused a mammogram under dire protests from a Japanese physician claiming to be a “naturopath” and had my breasts examined by ultrasound last year. No one in Japan offers thermography yet, but now I wonder if even that has dangers too. I guess it will be careful monthly self breast examinations from now on, and preventive measures.
Wow, what an amazing article–and thanks for giving us something to actually DO about the problem, at the end. I was just shopping for a white noise machine and started wondering if those, perhaps, shouldn’t be used near your head–especially a baby’s head. I suppose since the wireless ones are battery-operated, it’s not a problem, and otherwise if they are plugged in, no worse than a lamp on the bedside table?
Good questions in the comments, too–I hope the author can answer those.
Do your research said,
You know what else is non ionizing radiation? Sound waves, radio waves, light…. This is junk science that you’re spewing. I agree that ultrasound should be kept to a minimum, following the ALARA principle of ultrasound use, but single exposures are not going to cause any negative effects. You know what else causes DNA damage? Oxygen, sunlight, even water. I don’t see you preaching that people stop breathing for the sake of their DNA
Do your research,
Did you read the article? A fetus is subjected to up to 17 exposures, not 1. But negative effects are observed with just 1 exposure.
Natural radiation is NOT the same as man-made radiation.
There are 102 pages of ENDNOTES; 1399 references. (junk science?)
If you want to see how effective ALARA is, watch Flipping the Script, When Parents Fight Back, a new documentary about Big Pharma coercing continued radiation and chemo —
in children who are in remission!
The flat I live in has a smart gas and smart electricity meter installed. However, I live on the 1st floor and the gas meter is located on the ground floor outside at the front of the building, and the electricity meter is located again on the ground floor but just inside the front door. Can anyone advise whether they meters will pose a health problem for me considering their distance to me, as I am on the 1st floor? Thanks.
Doc E Smog said,
The term “non-ionising radiation” needs to be handled with care.
If we’re talking about electromagnetic radiation then there is a lot of research showing that NIR does have effects on human biology, the non-thermal effects which are being contested by the telecomms industry et al.
NIR can, of course, also be applied to any radiating energy incapable of ionising atoms (i.e. stripping electrons/protons) and ICNIRP specifies ultrasound as NIR in the range 1-40MHz. However, ultrasound is a mechanical energy, as is audible sound, just at a higher frequency. It can cause local warming or cavitation because it is vibrational in nature and any damage is most likely associated with those effects but theoretically the power densities are low enough to avoid both.
Ultrasound is generated at frequencies above 20kHz, similar to radio frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum, but it is not electromagnetic.
It can be, that in generating the ultrasound, done by applying an AC voltage to a piezoelectric crystal, that an accompanying RF electromagnetic field exists around the
transducer. Unfortunately, I can’t accurately comment on the strength, applied voltages vary from a few volts upwards depending on the application. It isn’t likely to be particularly intense though but given the proximity to the patient………
Maybe someone out there has some better idea on that; it’s not easy getting to measure this type of equipment.
So, biological effects may well exist but let’s be clear on the nature of the beast.
It is not reasonable to compare ultrasound and, say, 5G.
Add A Comment