Effects of Ultrasounds

megankp84 · August 2013

Hello I'm having twins and due in December, just went for my a/s last week and everything looked great. However I'm concerned about all of the ultrasounds I've had so and the effects on the babies. They took a small 3D/4D clip of of each baby, and it looks like baby girl is crying and in serious distress while baby boy seemed as calm as ever. Have you ladies noticed how your babies react during an ultrasound? Baby girl is always super active when we get u/s and baby boy always seems pretty calm and stationary. Aside from being worried about the effects of the ultraspunds I'm also concerned about their reactions to the ultrasound. When I expressed this to the midwife the other day she was not concerned about the baby girl's reaction but more about baby boy's reaction and if he was moving. Can you please share how your babies react during u/s or any knowledge you have on the effects of ultrasounds? I've been doing research but there's never anything definitive. Thanks!

chickaboo1974 · August 2013

All I can say is chill- I had a u/s about every two weeks... my boys acted just the same all the time. They were not anymore active- or inactive. I was not worried about how many u/s I had- and from what I can see my guys are just fine.

ceechie · August 2013

I agree with pp. And I don't think their nervous systems are developed enough for them to have a reaction. And it's not like they are being touched. I guess I feel confused about this post. What in an u/s sound would cause her pain? It's so non invasive.
And I always had one twin more active than the other. Different babies, different personalities. My baby A is calmer and more sensitive, while my baby B is always awake and active. And that's how they were as inside babies.

Rynleigh · August 2013

Of all the reading I did during my pregnancy, I found that most medical researchers and scientists agree that the only "harm" from ultrasounds is hypothetical - that is, it is plausible that some harm could be done, but there have been no verified cases of it happening. The hypothesis is that some harm could come from *prolonged* (not multiple) ultrasounds due to the soundwaves creating internal body heat, which could in turn cause damage to a fetus or embryo. This hypothesis became more popular when 3D/4D ultrasounds started becoming widely available, because there were fears that the longer scans used to get good images could result in possibly heat injury to babies.... but even with all of the longer scans that have been happening, there still hasn't been a single case of provable injury to a child, and all studies that have followed children through life found no significant differences in development between those who were exposed to ultrasound and those who were not (a few even found that those exposed to ultrasound had fewer health problems - but that is more likely a correlation with early and effective medical care being sought immediately due to problems seen in utero).

I would not be at all concerned about having multiple ultrasounds, or even a longer ultrasound, assuming it's not a 4hr+ scan lol

aliwisewoman · August 2013

The Doppler used to hear fetal heart tones are actually "riskier" than ultrasound. 1 minute of Doppler supposedly has the same effect, releases the same amount of energy, as 30 minutes of ultrasound. But no, I'm not concerned about ultrasound. Babies do make faces and grimace as they have poor muscle control. They are practicing, exercising their facial muscles. And babies do cry in the womb. They also yawn, punch or kick their twin, suck their thumb/finger/hand and practice breathing. At one ultrasound, my Baby B thunked himself in the eye and his jaw dropped like he surprised himself! Lol Seriously, there are way bigger concerns. Ultrasound has been around quite a while now.

megankp84 · August 2013

aliwisewoman said:
The Doppler used to hear fetal heart tones are actually "riskier" than ultrasound. 1 minute of Doppler supposedly has the same effect, releases the same amount of energy, as 30 minutes of ultrasound. But no, I'm not concerned about ultrasound. Babies do make faces and grimace as they have poor muscle control. They are practicing, exercising their facial muscles. And babies do cry in the womb. They also yawn, punch or kick their twin, suck their thumb/finger/hand and practice breathing. At one ultrasound, my Baby B thunked himself in the eye and his jaw dropped like he surprised himself! Lol Seriously, there are way bigger concerns. Ultrasound has been around quite a while now.

Aww poor baby...this made me laugh. Interesting to know about the Doppler. When I was as the hospital the other day they could not find baby girl's heartbeat as she kept moving. At one point the nurse just left it on my stomach for a few seconds and was laughing because you could hear the girl moving around. Thinking she definitely did not like the Doppler.

megankp84 · August 2013

Rynleigh said:
Of all the reading I did during my pregnancy, I found that most medical researchers and scientists agree that the only "harm" from ultrasounds is hypothetical - that is, it is plausible that some harm could be done, but there have been no verified cases of it happening. The hypothesis is that some harm could come from *prolonged* (not multiple) ultrasounds due to the soundwaves creating internal body heat, which could in turn cause damage to a fetus or embryo. This hypothesis became more popular when 3D/4D ultrasounds started becoming widely available, because there were fears that the longer scans used to get good images could result in possibly heat injury to babies.... but even with all of the longer scans that have been happening, there still hasn't been a single case of provable injury to a child, and all studies that have followed children through life found no significant differences in development between those who were exposed to ultrasound and those who were not (a few even found that those exposed to ultrasound had fewer health problems - but that is more likely a correlation with early and effective medical care being sought immediately due to problems seen in utero).

I would not be at all concerned about having multiple ultrasounds, or even a longer ultrasound, assuming it's not a 4hr+ scan lol

I read the same thing about ultrasounds increasing temperature, but I also read that in a few animal studies the noticed behavioral changes in the fetuses that were exposed to ultrasound vs those that weren't. All of this stuff is so scary because we really don't know the effects of the ultrasounds. My midwife told me there have been studies where they are linking the increase of autism to the increase of ultrasounds, but who knows. Anyway thanks for the feedback.

megankp84 · August 2013

ceechie said:
I agree with pp. And I don't think their nervous systems are developed enough for them to have a reaction. And it's not like they are being touched. I guess I feel confused about this post. What in an u/s sound would cause her pain? It's so non invasive.
And I always had one twin more active than the other. Different babies, different personalities. My baby A is calmer and more sensitive, while my baby B is always awake and active. And that's how they were as inside babies.

If you research the effects of ultrasounds on fetuses you will find various studies indicating the potential risks and harm.

I'm glad to know your babies different behaviors in the womb reflect there current personalities. Very reassuring.

Rynleigh · August 2013

megankp84 said:

Of all the reading I did during my pregnancy, I found that most medical researchers and scientists agree that the only "harm" from ultrasounds is hypothetical - that is, it is plausible that some harm could be done, but there have been no verified cases of it happening. The hypothesis is that some harm could come from *prolonged* (not multiple) ultrasounds due to the soundwaves creating internal body heat, which could in turn cause damage to a fetus or embryo. This hypothesis became more popular when 3D/4D ultrasounds started becoming widely available, because there were fears that the longer scans used to get good images could result in possibly heat injury to babies.... but even with all of the longer scans that have been happening, there still hasn't been a single case of provable injury to a child, and all studies that have followed children through life found no significant differences in development between those who were exposed to ultrasound and those who were not (a few even found that those exposed to ultrasound had fewer health problems - but that is more likely a correlation with early and effective medical care being sought immediately due to problems seen in utero).

I would not be at all concerned about having multiple ultrasounds, or even a longer ultrasound, assuming it's not a 4hr+ scan lol
I read the same thing about ultrasounds increasing temperature, but I also read that in a few animal studies the noticed behavioral changes in the fetuses that were exposed to ultrasound vs those that weren't. All of this stuff is so scary because we really don't know the effects of the ultrasounds. My midwife told me there have been studies where they are linking the increase of autism to the increase of ultrasounds, but who knows. Anyway thanks for the feedback.

The problem with anything that claims there is a link, or rather, a "correlation" between the increase of X and the increase of autism is that plenty of things have increased as autism has increased. Without large controlled, peer reviewed studies, correlation means pretty much nothing... Autism rates have been going up in correlation with an increase in organic food... they've gone up in correlation with an increase in internet access... they've gone up with a rise in the number of breastfed children over the last 20 years... they've gone up with a rise in the age requirements for car seats... they've gone up as abortion rates decrease... does that mean that autism will go down if we get rid of organic food, stop using the internet, stop breastfeeding our kids, get rid of car seats for kids over three, or have more abortions? No. It means that *technology changes*... in fact, ultrasound has been around 50+ years now, and the "increase" in autism has only been "skyrocketing" for the last 20 years. It wasn't even "rising" (subtly) until the 70s, and suddenly spiked up significantly during the mid to late 90s. If you want something to point a finger at, ultrasound is really not a very impressive candidate... but technology sure is a common theme...

Correlation is not causation. In reality, "autism" is not becoming more provably common - it is just being more readily diagnosed because of our technology... parents are more aware, share more information, take their kids to be seen by doctors more regularly, and the spectrum has been expanded to include several disorders that it didn't previously.

Animal studies re: ultrasounds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331527

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00281576#page-1

Autism rates:

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/04/explaining-increase-autism-rate.html

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-increase-in-autism-diagnoses-two-hypotheses/

megankp84 · August 2013

Rynleigh said:

megankp84 said:

Rynleigh said:
Of all the reading I did during my pregnancy, I found that most medical researchers and scientists agree that the only "harm" from ultrasounds is hypothetical - that is, it is plausible that some harm could be done, but there have been no verified cases of it happening. The hypothesis is that some harm could come from *prolonged* (not multiple) ultrasounds due to the soundwaves creating internal body heat, which could in turn cause damage to a fetus or embryo. This hypothesis became more popular when 3D/4D ultrasounds started becoming widely available, because there were fears that the longer scans used to get good images could result in possibly heat injury to babies.... but even with all of the longer scans that have been happening, there still hasn't been a single case of provable injury to a child, and all studies that have followed children through life found no significant differences in development between those who were exposed to ultrasound and those who were not (a few even found that those exposed to ultrasound had fewer health problems - but that is more likely a correlation with early and effective medical care being sought immediately due to problems seen in utero).

I would not be at all concerned about having multiple ultrasounds, or even a longer ultrasound, assuming it's not a 4hr+ scan lol
I read the same thing about ultrasounds increasing temperature, but I also read that in a few animal studies the noticed behavioral changes in the fetuses that were exposed to ultrasound vs those that weren't. All of this stuff is so scary because we really don't know the effects of the ultrasounds. My midwife told me there have been studies where they are linking the increase of autism to the increase of ultrasounds, but who knows. Anyway thanks for the feedback.

The problem with anything that claims there is a link, or rather, a "correlation" between the increase of X and the increase of autism is that plenty of things have increased as autism has increased. Without large controlled, peer reviewed studies, correlation means pretty much nothing... Autism rates have been going up in correlation with an increase in organic food... they've gone up in correlation with an increase in internet access... they've gone up with a rise in the number of breastfed children over the last 20 years... they've gone up with a rise in the age requirements for car seats... they've gone up as abortion rates decrease... does that mean that autism will go down if we get rid of organic food, stop using the internet, stop breastfeeding our kids, get rid of car seats for kids over three, or have more abortions? No. It means that *technology changes*... in fact, ultrasound has been around 50+ years now, and the "increase" in autism has only been "skyrocketing" for the last 20 years. It wasn't even "rising" (subtly) until the 70s, and suddenly spiked up significantly during the mid to late 90s. If you want something to point a finger at, ultrasound is really not a very impressive candidate... but technology sure is a common theme...

Correlation is not causation. In reality, "autism" is not becoming more provably common - it is just being more readily diagnosed because of our technology... parents are more aware, share more information, take their kids to be seen by doctors more regularly, and the spectrum has been expanded to include several disorders that it didn't previously.

Animal studies re: ultrasounds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331527

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00281576#page-1

Autism rates:

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/04/explaining-increase-autism-rate.html

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-increase-in-autism-diagnoses-two-hypotheses/

Very insightful. Thank you for the info.

NetPetal · August 2013

I was never concerned about this and never saw any signs of it affecting the babies. A friend of mine swore her singleton daughter was startled by it.

Felicity86 · August 2013

I thought I read somewhere that an ultrasound is, volume-wise, to the baby, the equivalent of standing next to a subway. Also, isnt it really loud in the uterus anyway? I thought that's why newborns liked white noise. So, no, I don't think they'd be upset by the noise if it.

heaven22tw · August 2013

at the end of the day...the benefits outweigh the risks. .

Lil Kate · August 2013

This

Rynleigh said:

megankp84 said:

Rynleigh said:
Of all the reading I did during my pregnancy, I found that most medical researchers and scientists agree that the only "harm" from ultrasounds is hypothetical - that is, it is plausible that some harm could be done, but there have been no verified cases of it happening. The hypothesis is that some harm could come from *prolonged* (not multiple) ultrasounds due to the soundwaves creating internal body heat, which could in turn cause damage to a fetus or embryo. This hypothesis became more popular when 3D/4D ultrasounds started becoming widely available, because there were fears that the longer scans used to get good images could result in possibly heat injury to babies.... but even with all of the longer scans that have been happening, there still hasn't been a single case of provable injury to a child, and all studies that have followed children through life found no significant differences in development between those who were exposed to ultrasound and those who were not (a few even found that those exposed to ultrasound had fewer health problems - but that is more likely a correlation with early and effective medical care being sought immediately due to problems seen in utero).

I would not be at all concerned about having multiple ultrasounds, or even a longer ultrasound, assuming it's not a 4hr+ scan lol
I read the same thing about ultrasounds increasing temperature, but I also read that in a few animal studies the noticed behavioral changes in the fetuses that were exposed to ultrasound vs those that weren't. All of this stuff is so scary because we really don't know the effects of the ultrasounds. My midwife told me there have been studies where they are linking the increase of autism to the increase of ultrasounds, but who knows. Anyway thanks for the feedback.

The problem with anything that claims there is a link, or rather, a "correlation" between the increase of X and the increase of autism is that plenty of things have increased as autism has increased. Without large controlled, peer reviewed studies, correlation means pretty much nothing... Autism rates have been going up in correlation with an increase in organic food... they've gone up in correlation with an increase in internet access... they've gone up with a rise in the number of breastfed children over the last 20 years... they've gone up with a rise in the age requirements for car seats... they've gone up as abortion rates decrease... does that mean that autism will go down if we get rid of organic food, stop using the internet, stop breastfeeding our kids, get rid of car seats for kids over three, or have more abortions? No. It means that *technology changes*... in fact, ultrasound has been around 50+ years now, and the "increase" in autism has only been "skyrocketing" for the last 20 years. It wasn't even "rising" (subtly) until the 70s, and suddenly spiked up significantly during the mid to late 90s. If you want something to point a finger at, ultrasound is really not a very impressive candidate... but technology sure is a common theme...

Correlation is not causation. In reality, "autism" is not becoming more provably common - it is just being more readily diagnosed because of our technology... parents are more aware, share more information, take their kids to be seen by doctors more regularly, and the spectrum has been expanded to include several disorders that it didn't previously.

Animal studies re: ultrasounds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331527

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00281576#page-1

Autism rates:

https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/04/explaining-increase-autism-rate.html

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-increase-in-autism-diagnoses-two-hypotheses/

katiebenes · August 2013

one of mine glares towards the ultrasound. the other dances.
in my mind, knowing that they have properly developed and aren't coming across major issues that can be caught by ultrasound is more important than bugging the babies with a little noise.
I'm a loud person, they might as well get used to the volume now

Want a personalized experience?

Effects of Ultrasounds

Re: Effects of Ultrasounds

Choose Another Board

Search Boards