Showing posts with label Ultrasound. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ultrasound. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Ultrasound Pregnancy Risks – Latest Research About The Dangers

Please pass this information on to others.  Parents really need to know the facts about this technology.

For more on this topic, please see:  "The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation"

===============================================


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.

Microwave radiation on children's brains

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 X-Rays
Ultrasound is listed on the website of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a section entitled “Radiation Emitting Products.”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 Causes Fetal 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.
Graphic on how Ultrasound affects babies weight

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.


Ultrasonic Heating
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.

Ultrasound damages sperm production
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 links between ultrasound exposure in utero (as well as 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.
6Get 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.

Baby Monitor radiation dangers compared to other wireless devices

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.

For more information and/or for a list of citations, please visit www.BirthofaNewEarth.com and/or www.RadiationDangers.com 



Source



Monday, April 08, 2019

PAPERBACK RELEASE - PRE-ORDER SPECIAL - THE DARK SIDE OF PRENATAL ULTRASOUND

PRE-ORDER SPECIAL 
LIMITED TIME ONLY 




Dear friends, 

I am excited to announce that my book, The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation – Part 1, will be available in paperback very soon.  I have ordered a proof of the book and am hoping to have copies of the final version in my hands within 2-3 weeks. 

Here is a brief write-up about the book… 


This book offers a ground-breaking analysis of the documented facts concerning the dangers of prenatal ultrasound. Much of the information contained in the book has been previously kept hidden from the public. Nonetheless, the book contains nearly 300 pages of sourced material, along with 1300+ citations to confirm that prenatal ultrasound is harming developing babies and should be banned from obstetrics immediately.  

Despite the medical establishment repeating the mantra that ultrasound is “just sound waves” and therefore “perfectly safe” during pregnancy, in truth, ultrasound is based on non-ionizing radiation, and many thousands of studies have confirmed that this type of radiation is harmful, especially for children and developing babies in the womb.  

As a result of exposure to ultrasound in utero, children are at great risk of being born with radiation-induced genetic mutations that can negatively affect future generations. They may experience damaging reproductive effects that can lead to fertility issues and sterility later in life. They may suffer from radiation-induced brain damage and/or neurodevelopmental delays that can contribute to autism. And there are many childhood diseases that can be traced back to exposure to ultrasonic irradiation in utero. 
 

Parents who care about the welfare of their children will benefit from understanding the facts about this technology and all technologies that utilize non-ionizing radiation (cell phones, cordless phones, baby monitors, etc.). It is time to take a stand to protect the children.  

This book is being offered in the spirit of love and in the hope that the information contained in the book will benefit families worldwide. Thank you for caring about the future of Earth’s children and for passing this information on to others. 


For those who have already purchased the PDF copy of the book, I am offering a very special discount price.  Please see your email inbox for this special offer or email jeanicebarcelo@yahoo.com for info.

For those who have not purchased the PDF and would like to receive an autographed copy of the paperback from me, I am offering an early-bird special price between now and April 15, 2019. Take $5 off the cost of the regular price of the book which is $35, now reduced to $30.  

Please follow this link to pre-order the book.   Final pricing will include the $30 book fee plus shipping costs, which vary from country to country.

I thank you for supporting my work and helping to spread this information.  Ultrasound is, without a doubt, part of the radiation grid that is now threatening all living things.  It is urgently necessary for parents to understand this fact so that children may be protected from this technology and the irradiation of our children will come to an end.

Thursday, March 28, 2019

Is Prenatal Ultrasound Really Safe?

Since the mid-1970s, parents have been repeatedly told that prenatal ultrasound is “perfectly safe” during pregnancy because it is “just sound waves” and does not use ionizing radiation.  Expectant mothers have been encouraged (and also pressured) by their care providers to undergo multiple ultrasound scans during pregnancy, as well as Doppler fetal heart monitoring, which is also ultrasound-based.  Many babies born today have been exposed to ultrasound multiple times during gestation, and some of these children may have been exposed to ultrasonic fetal heart monitors for hours or even daysduring hospital birth.  Yet this kind of extended exposure to ultrasound has been documented to cause fetal death[1] and ultrasound is being repeatedly linked to fetal demise.[2] [3] [4]

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[5] [6] [7] to humans and other life forms.[8] [9] [10]  All living things are in danger from exposure to technologies that emit non-ionizing radiation, and this includes technologies like cell phones,[11] [12] [13] cordless phones,[14] [15] wifi routers,[16] [17]baby monitors,[18] [19] [20] smart meters,[21] [22] [23] etc.  Children, and especially developing babies in the womb, are at great risk from non-ionizing technologies, including ultrasound, since their brains and bodies absorb more radiation,[24] [25] and since their bone marrow absorbs up to 10x as much radiation as does that of adults.[26] [27]

On the FDA’s website in a section entitled “Radiation‑Emitting Products, we are told that “ultrasound… is based on non-ionizing radiation, so it does not have the same risks as X-rays…”  However, many dozens of studies have confirmed that ultrasound produces very similar biological damage to the damage caused by x-rays and other technologies that emit ionizing radiation.[28] [29] [30]  For example, a study done in the early 1980s by Dr. Doreen Liebeskind, et al., found that a single exposure to ultrasound produced DNA damage similar to 250 chest x‑rays.[31] The genetic damage was permanent and heritable for ten generations and beyond.[32]

Ultrasonically-induced DNA damage is extremely well-documented and includes DNA fragmentation,[33] DNA shearing,[34] single and double stand breaks,[35] chromo-somal breaks and aberrations,[36] an increase in sister chromatid exchange,[37] [38] and even the complete deactivation of genetic material.[39]

DNA-damaged fetal cells can quickly replicate and multiply during cell division, leaving developing babies susceptible to mutated development, and/or cancerous tumors, leukemia, and other life-threatening illnesses over time. As with all forms of radiation damage, the effects of ultrasonic irradiation may not show up for several years, and herein lies the insidious nature of this technology.   Since an ultrasound beam can penetrate deep into the body without showing any signs of damage on the skin, the children who are exposed to this radiation during gestation may appear normal at birth, yet the internal contents of their bodies have been cooked, scrambled, and severely disturbed by ultrasound, causing potential damage to blood, brain, bones, reproductive organs, heart, and more.

Ultrasound scans, and especially doppler fetal heart monitors, have been shown to cause extremely high levels of heating[40] [41] [42] which can lead to neurological defects,[43] spina bifida,[44] deformations in the head and brain,[45]  heart irregularities and defects,[46] [47] and other serious biological harm.  Ultrasound has been linked to fetal growth retardation in multiple studies,[48] [49] [50] and this may, in part, be due to restriction in bone growth caused by the bone absorbing radiation heat.[51]

Prenatal ultrasound is being linked to low birth weight,[52] fetal abnormalities,[53] miscarriage,[54] [55] preterm labor,[56] infertility,[57] heart defects,[58]autism,[59] [60] hearing loss,[61] speech problems,[62] leukemia,[63] etc. 

Furthermore, the medical establishment has known, since at least 1955that ultrasound interferes with fertility.[64]  Ultrasound has been shown to have deleterious effects on the menstrual cycle,[65]induce premature ovulation,[66] cause problems with embryo implantation,[67] and trigger structural alterations in ovarian[68]and testicular tissue.[69]  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.

Ultrasound has been documented to permanently halt sperm production[70] and, in fact, the medical establishment is currently using ultrasound as a form of male contraception.[71] [72]  Ultrasonic irradiation is being used to induce non-invasive vasectomies since it can literally “cook” the vas deferens of adult males and thereby block the tubes that deliver sperm to the penis.[73]  Additionally, two 15‑minute blasts of ultrasound to the adult male scrotum ensures a minimum of six months infertility,[74] and infertility can be permanent.[75]  If infertility is temporary, the quality of new sperm is in question, since ultrasound can cause genetic defects in sperm and contribute to the myriad new or de novo genetic mutations we are seeing in children today, including children with autism.

Moreover, if ultrasound can stop sperm production and cook the reproductive organs of adult men, what we do we suppose is happening to our developing babies when they direct that beam at the genitals to discover the sex of the child?

Infertility is skyrocketing in the U.S., with men now producing 60% less sperm than they did in 1975[76] (when ultrasound was mainstreamed in obstetrics). Female fertility is also in steep decline and the U.S. is currently experiencing its lowest birth rate ever recorded since 1909[77] 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.[78]

Entire genetic bloodlines are at risk because of our addiction to radiation-emitting technologies, including ultrasound, and we are not the only species that is being harmed. It is imperative that we acknowledge the danger of what we are doing and put an end to this madness NOW. Not only do we need to return to sane technology that will not endanger our lives, but we also need to say NO to harmful medical interventions like ultrasonography so that we can protect ourselves and our children from further harm.

Based on the book, “The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non‑Ionizing Radiation – Part 1,” available at www.BirthofaNewEarth.com.

Jeanice Barcelo is a medical researcher and birth activist and the author of several books including “Birth Trauma and the Dark Side of Modern Medicine” and “The Dark Side of Prenatal Ultrasound and the Dangers of Non-Ionizing Radiation – Part 1.”  To learn more about Jeanice’s work, please visit www.BirthofaNewEarth.com or www.RadiationDangers.com


Source


ENDNOTES

[1] R. Shoji, et al., An Experimental Study on the Effect of Low-Intensity Ultrasound on Developing Mouse EmbryosJ Faculty Science, 1971, Hokkaido University, Series VI, Zoology, Vol 18:51-56 and R. Shoji, et al., Experimental Studies on the Effect of Ultrasound on Mouse EmbryosTeratology, 1972, Vol 6: 119, and T. ShimizuAn Experimental Safety Study of Mice Exposed to Low Intensity Ultrasound, 1973, Abstract No. 61, p 18, presented at the 2nd World Congress on Ultrasonics in Medicine, No, 277, The Netherlands, Amsterdam, Excerpta Medica, and R. Shoji, et al., Influence of Low Intensity Ultrasonic Irradiation on Prenatal Development of Two Inbred Mouse StrainsTeratology, 1975, Vol 12:227-232.

[2] K.A. Curto, Early Postpartum Mortality Following Ultrasound Radiation, Division of Biological Effects, Bureau of Biological Health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.

[3] M.R. Sikov, et al., Stage Dependence of Ultrasound-Induced Embryotoxicity in the Rat, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, March 1986.  Vol. UFFC-33(2).

[4] Saari-Kemppainen et al., Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancyThe Lancet, 1990, Vol. 336: 387–91

[5] Studies, JustProveIt.net, 2010.

[6] EMF Portalhttps://www.emf-portal.org/en

[7] PowerWatch, https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/

[8] Reynard Loki, Our cellphone addiction is turning wireless tech into an invisible weapon that’s destroying wildlife, Salon.com, Jul 13, 2018.  https://www.salon.com/2018/07/13/our-cellphone-addiction-is-turning-wireless-tech-into-an-invisible-weapon-that-is-destroying-wildlife_partner/

[9] Arthur Firstenberg, The Invisible Rainbow, 2017, AGB Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Chapter 16, citing Bienenvater, Issue No. 9, 2003 and F. Ruzicka, Shaden Durch ElektrosmogBienenwelt, 2003, Vol 10: 34-35.

[10] Erin Elizabeth, Hundreds of birds dead during 5G experiment in The Hague, The Netherlands, HealthNutNews.com, Nov 5, 2018. https://www.healthnutnews.com/hundreds-of-birds-dead-during-5g-experiment-in-the-hague-the-netherlands/

[11] L Hardell, et al., Case–control study on cellular and cordless phones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000–2003Neuroepidemiology, 2005, Vol 25: 120–128.

[12] G.N. De Iuliis, et al., Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitroPLoS ONE, Jul 7 2009, Vol 4

[13] Pauline Anderson, Long-term Cell Phone Use Linked to Brain Tumor Risk, Medscape.com, November 13, 2014.  http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834888

[14] D.L. Davis, et al., Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogenPathophysiology, Apr 2013, Vol. 20(2): 123-9.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23664410

[15] Lloyd Burrell, Cordless Phones: Even More Dangerous Than Cell Phones?, ElectricSense.com, Jul 14, 2010.  https://www.electricsense.com/815/cordless-phones-even-more-dangerous-than-cell-phones/

[16] Prof. Tom Butler, On the Clear Evidence of the Risks to Children from Smartphone and WiFi Radio Frequency Radiation, University College, Cork Ireland.  https://www.gr3c.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/On-the-Clear-Evidence-of-the-Risks-to-Children-from-Smartphone-and-WiFi-Radio-Frequency-Radiation_Final.pdf

[17] Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, Dr. Klinghardt’s Most Important Talk: “Exposure to Wifi & EMF’s – Root Cause of Health Problems”, Youtube.com, Aug 5, 2018. https://youtu.be/GvX1cv6V-PE

[18] Neil Cohen, Wireless Baby Monitor Radiation Measuring RF Radiation from Wireless Baby Monitor, EMF Safety Zone Youtube Channle, Nov 28, 2018.   https://youtu.be/sXC-vOB9YdE

[19] Do Baby Monitors Emit Radiation?, RadiationHealthRisks.com,  https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/do-baby-monitors-emit-radiation/

[20] Sarah, Get Those Wireless Baby Monitors OUT of the Nursery!, TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com, July 12, 2017.  https://thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/get-those-wireless-baby-monitors-out-of-the-nursery/

[21] Erin Elizabeth, Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death, HealthNutNews.com, Aug 7, 2017. https://www.healthnutnews.com/smart-meters-countdown-to-a-national-crisis-of-illness-and-death/

[22] Smart Meter Health Complaints, EMF Safety Network.

 http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/smart-meter-health-complaints/

[23] Lynne Wycherley, Smart meter radiation and health; why are we neglecting non-toxic alternatives? (Pt II), StopSmartMeters.org.uk, June 6, 2017.  http://stopsmartmeters.org.uk/smart-meter-radiation-and-health-why-are-we-neglecting-non-toxic-alternatives-2/

[24] L. Lloyd Morgan, et al., Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequencesJournal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure, Dec 2014, Vol 2(4): 197-204, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

[25] J. Wiart, et al., Analysis of RF exposure in the head tissues of children and adults, Phys Med Biol, 2008, Vol 53(13) (2008):3681-3695

[26] A. Christ, et al., Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone usersPhys Med Biol, 2020, Vol 55:  1767-1783

[27] Devra Davis, PhD., Cell Phones, Radiation & Your Child’s Health, HealthyChild.org, January 15, 2013,  http://www.healthychild.org/cell-phones-radiation-your-childs-health/

[28] Earl H. Newcomer, et al., Chromosomal and Nuclear Aberrations Induced by Ultrasonic Vibrations, American Journal of Botany, February 1949, Volume 36(2), pp 230-236.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2437793

[29] M. Kato, Visible Mutation Induced in Drosphila by Ultrasonic VibrationBulletin of the Osaka Medical School, 1966, Vol. 12:114-188.

[30] M.R. Sikov, et al., Stage Dependence of Ultrasound-Induced Embryotoxicity in the Rat, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control, March 1986.  Vol. UFFC-33(2).

[31] D. Liebeskind, et al., Morphological changes in the surface characteristics of cultured cells after exposure to diagnostic ultrasound, Radiology, Feb. 1981, 138(2):419-23.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7455124

[32] D. Liebeskind, et al., Diagnostic Ultrasound:  Time Lapse and Transmission Electron Microscopic Studies of Cells Isonated In Vitro, Br. J.Cancer, 1982, Vol. 45, Suppl. V, p. 176.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2149293/pdf/brjcancersuppl00063-0185.pdf


[33] V. Garaj-Vrhovac, et al., Induction of Micronuclei in Human Lymphocytes After Occupational Exposure to UltrasoundChemosphere, 1999, Vol 39(15): 3541-3553, https://academia.edu/27098722/Induction_of_micronuclei_in_human_lymphocytes_after_occupational_exposure_to_ultrasound citing H. Galperin-Lemaitre, et al., Fragmentation of purified mammalian DNA molecules by ultrasound below human therapeutic doses, Humangenefik., 1975, Vol 29: 61-66 and T. Kondo, et al, Damage in DNA irradiated with 1.2 MHz ultrasound and its effect on template activity of DNA for RNA synthesisRadiation Research, 1985, Vol 104: 284-292, and T. Kondo and G Yoshii, Effect of intensity of 1.2 MHz ultrasound on change in DNA synthesis of irradiated mouse L cellsUltrasound in Medicine Biology,1985, Vol 11(l): 113-119, and V. Garaj-Vrhovac et al., Cytogenetic effects of occupational exposure to ultrasound: pilot study, In Abstracts of 2Sth annual meeting of EEMS, 1995; p 135, and D.L. Miller and R.M. Thomas, The role of cavitation in the induction of cellular DNA damage by ultrasound and lithotripter shock waves in vitroUltrasound in Medicine Biology,1996; 22(S): 681-687, and DL Miller et al, Comet assay reveals DNA strand breaks induced by ultrasonic cavitiation in vitroUltrasound in Medicine Biology, 1995, Vol 21(6): 841-848.

[34] John Thacker, The Possibility of Genetic Hazard from Ultrasonic RadiationCurrent Topics in Radiation Research Quarterly, 8, 1973, pp 235-258.

[35] Rinko Kubota, et al., Double‐Strand Breaks in Genome‐Sized DNA Caused by UltrasoundChemphyschem, April 19, 2017, Vol 18(8): 959-964.  https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5413823/

[36] S.M. Morris, et al., Effect of Ultrasound on Human Leucocytes.  Sister Chromatid Exchange AnalysisUltrasound in Med & Biol, Vol 4: 253-258 citing I.J.C. MacIntosh, et al., Relationship between intensity of ultrasound and induction of chromosome aberrationsBr J Radiol, 1972, Vol 45: 320-327 and H. Galperin-Lemaitre, et al., Fragmetation of purified mammalian DNA molecules by ultrasound below human therapeutic dosesHumangenetick, 1975, Vol 29: 61-66.

[37] C.A. Ehlinger, et al., Diagnostic ultrasound increases sister chromatid exchange; preliminary reportWisconsin Medical Journal, August 1981, Vol 80: 21-22.

[38] N. Ozawa, et al., Sister Chromatid Exchanges in Human Lymphocytes after Exposure to Pulse-Wave UltrasoundTohoku J Exp Med, 1984, Vol 143: 473-480.

[39] Dr. Peter 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.

https://karolinaloskotova.blog.cz/1811/ultrazvuk-poskozuje-dna-odhaluje-studie-doporucuji

[40] Zhi-Hong Zheng, MD, et al, Letter to the Editor – Neurosurgical Forum, Trigeminal neuralgiaJ Neurosurg, 2015, Vol 123:289–296. http://thejns.org/doi/pdf/10.3171/2014.11.JNS142219

[41] 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.”  https://www.emfacts.com/2006/08/534-ultrasound-dangers-to-the-developing-fetus/

[42] 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 ultrasoundUltrasound in Medicine and Biology, 1997, Vol 23(6):  805-812.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301562997000276

[43] David Blake, Ultrasound: Autism, Agriculture, and a Future Tool for Treating Neurological Diseases, The University of New Carolina at Pembroke, undw.edu, https://uncw.edu/csurf/Explorations/documents/blakedavid.pdf citing S.B. Barnett, Intracranial temperature elevation from diagnostic ultrasoundUltrasound in Medicine & Biology, 2001, Vol 27(7):  883-888.

[44] 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, 1979:267-291.

[45] Jim West, Ultrasound Causation for Microcephaly and Zika Virus, The Hypothesis (Part A), (Kindle Location 1224). harvoa.  Kindle Edition.  http://harvoa.org/chs/pr/dusbk2.htm

[46] E.N. Harvey, The Effect of High Frequency Sound Waves on Heart Muscle and other Irritable TissuesAmer Jour Physiol, 1929, Vol 91: 284-290.

[47] 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: 267-291.

[48] H.D. Stewart, et al., 1985, citing E.L. Diamond, FDA Contract Report on Assessment of Ultrasound Exposure During Gestation and Neonatal Growth, FDA Contract No. 223-83-6023, John Hopkins University, February 1985.

[49] E.A. Lyons, et al., Followup study in children exposed to ultrasound in utero – analysis of height and weight in first six years of life, in Proceedings of 28th Annual Convention, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, September 15-19, 1980, Volume 49.  (Also see “Bioeffect brouhaha,” AIUM bioeffects panel discussion, in Diagnostic Imaging, December 1963, pp 60-63).

[50] R.M. Moore, Effects of sonic radiation on growth and developmentAm J Epidemiology, 1982, Vol 116: 571.

[51] H. Shankar, et al., Potential Adverse Ultrasound-related Biological Effects: A Critical ReviewAnesthesiology, November 2011, Vol 115: 1109-1124, http://anesthesiology.pubs.asahq.org/Article.aspx?articleid=1934478 citing C. Doody, et al, In vitro heating of human fetal vertebra by pulsed diagnostic ultrasoundUltrasound Med Biol, 1999, Vol 25: 1289–1294, and J.L. Drewniak, et al., In vitro ultrasonic heating of fetal boneJ Acoust Soc Am, 1989, Vol 86:  1254–1258, and E.L. Carstensen, et al., Ultrasonic heating of the skullJ Acoust Soc Am, 1990, Vol 87: 1310–1317.

[52] J.S. Abramowicz, et al., Fetal Thermal Effects of Diagnostic UltrasoundJ Ultrasound Med 2008; Vol 27: 541–559.  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f5e/59affe236100a436c0ff0878ab150b4b1fe2.pdf

[53] L.M. Kinnier Wilson, Obstetric Ultrasound and Childhood MalignanciesThe Lancet, November 3, 1984 citing ME Stratmeyer, Research in Ultrasound Bioeffects:  A Public Health ViewBirth Fam J, 1980, Vol 7:  92-100.

[54] Saari-Kemppainen et al., Ultrasound screening and perinatal mortality: controlled trial of systematic one-stage screening in pregnancyThe Lancet, 1990, Vol 336:387–91.

[55] Alley Apple Tree, An Ultrasound (may have) Killed My Baby, Youtube.com, Dec. 17, 2014.  https://youtu.be/fd8yhZRqFjI

[56] H.D. Stewart, et al., 1985, citing E.L. Diamond, FDA Contract Report on Assessment of Ultrasound Exposure During Gestation and Neonatal Growth, FDA Contract No. 223-83-6023, John Hopkins University, February 1985.

[57] Tiffany Keiser, Therapeutic Ultrasound Effectively Stops Sperm Production, Could be Used As Contraceptive for Men, DailyTech.com, January 30, 2012.  http://www.dailytech.com/Therapeutic+Ultrasound+Effectively+Stops+Sperm+Production+Could+be+Used+As+Contraceptive+for+Men/article23890.htm

[58] 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, 1979:267-291.

[59] Ultrasound Autism Connection?, Ultrasound-Autism.org,http://www.ultrasound-autism.org/

[60] J.K. Grether, et al., Antenatal ultrasound and risk of autism spectrum disorders, J Autism Dev Disord, Feb 2010, Vol 40(2): 238-45 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19728066 and S.B.C.

[61] Sarah, Prenatal Ultrasounds: A Risky Proposition, TheHealthyHomeEconomist.com.   http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/prenatal-ultrasounds-risky-proposition/

[62] JD Campbell, et al., Case-control study of prenatal ultrasonography exposure in children with delayed speechCMAJ, November 15, 1993, Vol 149(10): 1435-40.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8221427

[63] Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D., “Dr. Robert Mendelsohn on Pregnancy and the Dangers of Ultrasound,” From “Moments with Mendelsohn, A Presentation by Esther Thaler, Ultrasound and Pregnancy, “ http://youtu.be/YfaUQCp6L1s

[64] D. Kamocsay, Effects of Ultrasonics on the Testicles – Experimental Studies in White RatsArztliche Forschung, 1955, Vol. 9: 389-395

[65] Ultrasound from Conception to 10+0 Weeks of Gestation, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Scientific Impact Paper No. 49, March 2015, p 6. https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/scientific-impact-papers/sip-49.pdf

[66] West, Jim. 50 Human Studies, in Utero, Conducted in Modern China, Indicate Extreme Risk for Prenatal Ultrasound: A New Bibliography (Kindle Locations 542-548). harvoa. Kindle Edition citing Zhuang Qing Song, Effects of Diagnostic Ultrasonic Wave on the Ultrastructures of the Human Fetus Testicles, 2008.

[67] E. Siegel, et al., Cellular attachment as a sensitive indicator of the effects of diagnostic ultrasound exposure on cultured human cellsRadiology, October 1979, 133(1):175-9, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/472288

[68] 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, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.   U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, NIH Publication No. 84-667, p 51

[69] W.D. O’Brien, et al., Morphological changes to mouse testicular tissue from in vivoultrasonic irradiation (preliminary report)Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology, 1979, Vol 5(1): 35-43.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/030156297990125X

[70] Tiffany Keiser, Therapeutic Ultrasound Effectively Stops Sperm Production, Could be Used As Contraceptive for Men, DailyTech.com, Jan 30, 2012. http://dailytech.com/Therapeutic+Ultrasound+Effectively+Stops+Sperm+Production+Could+be+Used+As+Contraceptive+for+Men/article23890.htm

[71] Ultrasound male contraceptive, overlooked for decades, confirmed to work, EurekaAlert.org, January 29, 2012.  https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/mcip-umc012912.php  

[72] Jennifer Welsh, Future Male Birth Control May Zap Sperm with Sound Waves, LiveScience.com, January 29, 2012.

[73] Having ‘the snip’ without the chop, News.BBC.co.uk, Jan 10, 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1751177.stm

[74] Tiffany Keiser, Therapeutic Ultrasound Effectively Stops Sperm Production, Could be Used As Contraceptive for Men, DailyTech.com, January 30, 2012.  http://www.dailytech.com/Therapeutic+Ultrasound+Effectively+Stops+Sperm+Production+Could+be+Used+As+Contraceptive+for+Men/article23890.htm

[75] Elaine Lissner, “Ultrasound male contraceptive, overlooked for decades, confirmed to work, January 29, 2012, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/mcip-umc012912.php

[76] Doctors Shocked to Discover Sperm Counts in Western Men Plummeted Nearly 60%, TheAntiMedia.org, July 28, 2017.  http://theantimedia.org/sperm-counts-western-men/

[77] Rachael Rettner, US Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low: What’s Behind the Decline?, LiveScience.com, May 17, 2018.  https://www.livescience.com/62592-birth-rate-declines-2017.html

[78] Barrie Trower, 5G Gigantic health hazard – Dr Barrie Trower & Sir Julian Rose, Youtube.com, https://youtu.be/DLVIbPtNrVo