To: Red Badger
And they say ultrasounds are “harmless” to babies...
2 posted on
12/04/2019 2:18:53 PM PST by
ConservativeMind
(Trump: Befuddling Democrats, Republicans, and the Media for the benefit of the US and all mankind.)
To: ConservativeMind
Different kind and intensity...............
5 posted on
12/04/2019 2:21:46 PM PST by
Red Badger
(Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain...................)
To: ConservativeMind
That’s like comparing a gentle wind to a typhoon.
18 posted on
12/04/2019 2:52:50 PM PST by
Jewbacca
(The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem)
To: ConservativeMind
Ultrasound for imaging is safe for babies.
Not the same power strength or exact frequncies.
Much like anything else in the world, the frequency matters, and the power behind the signal matters, and how its delivered matters, continuous or pulsed.
49 posted on
12/04/2019 5:43:31 PM PST by
Secret Agent Man
(Gone Galt; Not Averse to Going Bronson.)
To: ConservativeMind
And they say ultrasounds are “harmless” to babies...Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.
—Paracelsus
Nutmeg is great in your eggnog and in small doses can be used for nausea but as little as ten grams can give you hallucinations and fifty grams can kill you.
65 posted on
12/05/2019 10:00:42 AM PST by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(A hero is a hero no matter what medal they give him. Likewise a schmuck is still a schmuck.)
To: ConservativeMind
It depend upon the intensity, focus and duration of the ultrasound waves. The ones used in imaging do not cause any tissue damage.
66 posted on
12/05/2019 10:08:58 AM PST by
CA Conservative
(Texan by birth, Californian by circumstance)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson