On 22 December 2014 at 11:43, James Cameron wrote: > Didn't look at the video, but did look at "Epidemiology of human > exposure to ultrasound: A critical review" and "Quantification of risk > from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound" for a start, and they > were interesting. > > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0301562988901743 > > A look at the two abstracts and references indicated that the question of foetal ultrasound safety is not a settled one in the medical profession. Conclusion (2) below bears noting :-(. I've added journal details, authors and affiliations so people can see where this fits into "mainstream" thinking. PLUS :-) 3792 possibly amd/or variably related papers and books http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=3DArticleListURL&_method=3Dlist&_A= rticleListID=3D-702597290&_sort=3Dv&_st=3D17&view=3Dc&_origin=3DrelatedBook= &panel=3DrelatedBooks&_mlktType=3DNoJournal&md5=3Db218651b8cc1691b496bc2dbe= ccc6389&searchtype=3Da _________________ Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biolog y Volume 93, Issues 1-3 , January-April 2007, Pages 331-353 > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610706000988 > > > Quantification of risk from fetal exposure to diagnostic ultrasound It is concluded that: (1) thermal rather than nonthermal mechanisms are more likely to induce adverse effects in utero, and (2) while the probability of an adverse thermal event is usually small, under some conditions it can be disturbingly high. - Charles C. Church a , , , - Morton W. Miller b - a The University of Mississippi, National Center for Physical Acoustics, 1 Coliseum Drive, University, MS 38677-1848, USA - b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14642-8668, USA Available online 4 August 2006 ________________________ > --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .