4 ms·

I'm sure there's a time and a place for these things, but it cannot be said that something as innocuous sounding as 'ultrasound' is 100% safe. It has an effect

I'm sure there's a time and a place for these things, but it cannot be said that something as innocuous sounding as 'ultrasound' is 100% safe. It has an effect, it can be used to break up kidney stones for example. I personally wouldn't use it for scanning pregnant women, despite this very common usage. Turning it into a small consumer level device sounds like it could lead to people causing themselves harm.

dhmallon 3y ago
It is dose dependent. Use of low powered US for a short period is safe. If you increase power, you can cause damage - either to to break kidney stones as you say, or, when focussed properly, burn bits of the brain to treat tremors.
- verisimi 3y ago
  It depends on one's definition of "safe". Yes, smaller doses will have less of an impact. I'm simply stating that ultrasound does impact the body. Despite the innocuous sounding name referencing 'sound', it is less like music and more like a microwave, capable of breaking kidney stones, burning tumors. Re the most common usage, I don't think lots of scans in pregnancy can be beneficial. Perhaps one or 2 scans are worth the risk in special circumstances. Present day scanning machines are way more powerful than historical ones; the dose is not getting safer.
  - Cthulhu_ 3y ago
    Capable of, but the ultrasound used for that is focused, higher intensity and in bursts. I mean if you want to fearmonger, there's plenty more examples of things that can cause damage if used in a different way, like water, air, electricity, light, etc. You seem to want to claim that any use of ultrasound is dangerous, but you fail to provide evidence, you just bring in extreme cases and try to claim equivalence. I'm sure there's a fancy sounding fallacy name for that.
    - verisimi 3y ago
      What I am saying that it is agreed that ultrasound does have an impact. The failure in the provision of evidence, is with those that claim it is safe. Its not for me to prove it is harmful. Ask yourself, how can a treatment that breaks kidney stones or burn tumours also be 'safe'? It may be that the impact is negligible, but that is not safe. In the womb especially, a slight impact may have a large effect on a growing foetus. Ask yourself too, what level of radiation is safe? How much microwaving? Is any? So am I fearmongering, or is this a valid concern? I think it is clearly a valid concern. I do not simply accept medical consensus over the reasoning of my own mind. I can see use cases where the information that is provided by ultrasound is useful and outweighs the risk. I think that casual, repeated usage of ultrasound for pregnant women, for the 'gender reveal'/colour scans or whatever, with powerful machines, is ill advised though. I don't recommend anyone undertake any unnecessary medical procedures. I also think that an adult that has awareness of the scope of a potential impact, can do what they want - its their choice to do as they want. I object to inflicting avoidable harm (albeit the harm might not be obvious) to individuals that cannot consent - eg infants, foetuses. FWIW, I do have kids, and - to my regret - I did scan them before they were born. I wouldn't do it now, knowing what I do.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > Ask yourself, how can a treatment that breaks kidney stones or burn tumours also be 'safe'? The same way taking a bath can be safe, but a tsunami is not.
        fatnoah 3y ago
        Or that there's a difference between a bath in 37C water and a bath in 100C wather.
      - Loughla 3y ago
        >FWIW, I do have kids, and - to my regret - I did scan them before they were born. I wouldn't do it now, knowing what I do. Why are you acting like you have scientific consensus behind what you're saying? There is literally zero proof of anything you're claiming. >So am I fearmongering, or is this a valid concern? You're fearmongering. That's it. Nothing else. It's the same kind of attitude that has led to such a self-important, 'I know better than doctors' attitude about vaccines.
callalex 3y ago
Listening to music on a little portable speaker is perfectly safe for your ears. Standing in front of the stack at a 500,000 person concert is quite harmful. These devices are on the “portable speaker” end of that spectrum.

dhmallon 3y ago

It is dose dependent. Use of low powered US for a short period is safe. If you increase power, you can cause damage - either to to break kidney stones as you say, or, when focussed properly, burn bits of the brain to treat tremors.

verisimi 3y ago
It depends on one's definition of "safe". Yes, smaller doses will have less of an impact. I'm simply stating that ultrasound does impact the body. Despite the innocuous sounding name referencing 'sound', it is less like music and more like a microwave, capable of breaking kidney stones, burning tumors. Re the most common usage, I don't think lots of scans in pregnancy can be beneficial. Perhaps one or 2 scans are worth the risk in special circumstances. Present day scanning machines are way more powerful than historical ones; the dose is not getting safer.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Capable of, but the ultrasound used for that is focused, higher intensity and in bursts. I mean if you want to fearmonger, there's plenty more examples of things that can cause damage if used in a different way, like water, air, electricity, light, etc. You seem to want to claim that any use of ultrasound is dangerous, but you fail to provide evidence, you just bring in extreme cases and try to claim equivalence. I'm sure there's a fancy sounding fallacy name for that.
  - verisimi 3y ago
    What I am saying that it is agreed that ultrasound does have an impact. The failure in the provision of evidence, is with those that claim it is safe. Its not for me to prove it is harmful. Ask yourself, how can a treatment that breaks kidney stones or burn tumours also be 'safe'? It may be that the impact is negligible, but that is not safe. In the womb especially, a slight impact may have a large effect on a growing foetus. Ask yourself too, what level of radiation is safe? How much microwaving? Is any? So am I fearmongering, or is this a valid concern? I think it is clearly a valid concern. I do not simply accept medical consensus over the reasoning of my own mind. I can see use cases where the information that is provided by ultrasound is useful and outweighs the risk. I think that casual, repeated usage of ultrasound for pregnant women, for the 'gender reveal'/colour scans or whatever, with powerful machines, is ill advised though. I don't recommend anyone undertake any unnecessary medical procedures. I also think that an adult that has awareness of the scope of a potential impact, can do what they want - its their choice to do as they want. I object to inflicting avoidable harm (albeit the harm might not be obvious) to individuals that cannot consent - eg infants, foetuses. FWIW, I do have kids, and - to my regret - I did scan them before they were born. I wouldn't do it now, knowing what I do.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > Ask yourself, how can a treatment that breaks kidney stones or burn tumours also be 'safe'? The same way taking a bath can be safe, but a tsunami is not.
      - fatnoah 3y ago
        Or that there's a difference between a bath in 37C water and a bath in 100C wather.
    - Loughla 3y ago
      >FWIW, I do have kids, and - to my regret - I did scan them before they were born. I wouldn't do it now, knowing what I do. Why are you acting like you have scientific consensus behind what you're saying? There is literally zero proof of anything you're claiming. >So am I fearmongering, or is this a valid concern? You're fearmongering. That's it. Nothing else. It's the same kind of attitude that has led to such a self-important, 'I know better than doctors' attitude about vaccines.

callalex 3y ago

Listening to music on a little portable speaker is perfectly safe for your ears. Standing in front of the stack at a 500,000 person concert is quite harmful. These devices are on the “portable speaker” end of that spectrum.