My mom has been a local author in my hometown for about 7 years now. She recently self published a book based on reality. When my parents bought their home, they weren't expecting to share it. Our home had been an old boarding home for people just traveling through who needed a bed for the night. There were no individual bathrooms or kitchens. The house had 8 rooms total and 4 bathrooms, 3 of them full. All the doors are numbered, each with a padlock and the option of a communal breakfast. My parents continued this trend for a few years after they bought the house, since there were already a list of regulars who came and went. There was one continuous inhabitant who was a forever bachelor, who also had one heck of a secret.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
My Mothers Book
My mom has been a local author in my hometown for about 7 years now. She recently self published a book based on reality. When my parents bought their home, they weren't expecting to share it. Our home had been an old boarding home for people just traveling through who needed a bed for the night. There were no individual bathrooms or kitchens. The house had 8 rooms total and 4 bathrooms, 3 of them full. All the doors are numbered, each with a padlock and the option of a communal breakfast. My parents continued this trend for a few years after they bought the house, since there were already a list of regulars who came and went. There was one continuous inhabitant who was a forever bachelor, who also had one heck of a secret.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Hip Dysplesia
This is something that enters into my mind everytime I see a BabyBjorn or Snugli. I had one with my son and I hate how floppy he was in it. His head flopped, his legs flopped and I felt like he was going to fall out when I bent over. I sold it shortly after I got the Moby Wrap. My friend let me borrow her Mei Tei and my husband loved it. So we ended up buying one for ourselves. 2 years later I read about this and was extremely happy I got rid of the crotch dangler.
Summary Statement: The Medical Advisory Board of the IHDI does not endorse nor advise against any particular baby carrier or other equipment. The purpose of this educational statement is to provide information about healthy hip development to guide manufacturers in the development of safe designs of infant equipment, and to help parents make informed choices about the devices they use for their babies. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to choose a baby carrier that allows healthy hip positioning, in addition to other safety considerations. When babies are carried, the hips should be allowed to spread apart with the thighs supported and the hips bent.
Education Statement: The IHDI recommends healthy hip positioning for all babies to encourage normal hip development. Within the womb, a baby spends a long time tucked in the fetal position, in which both hips and knees are bent or flexed.
Baby in normal (fetal) womb position.
After birth, it takes several months for the joints to stretch out naturally. Babies that have been in the breech (bottom first) position may need even more time to stretch out naturally. The hip joint is a ball and socket joint. During the first few months of life the ball is more likely to be loose within the socket because babies are naturally flexible and because the edges of the socket are made of soft cartilage like the cartilage in the ear. If the hips are forced into a stretched-out position too early, the ball is at risk of permanently deforming the edges of the cup shaped socket (hip dysplasia) or gradually slipping out of the socket altogether (hip dislocation). Hip dysplasia or dislocation in babies is not painful so this may go undetected until walking age and may also result in painful arthritis during adulthood. The risk of hip dysplasia or dislocation is greatest in the first few months of life. By six months of age, most babies have nearly doubled in size, the hips are more developed and the ligaments are stronger, so are less susceptible to developing hip dysplasia.
The most unhealthy position for the hips during infancy is when the legs are held in extension with the hips and knees straight and the legs brought together, which is the opposite of the fetal position. The risk to the hips is greater when this unhealthy position is maintained for a long time. Healthy hip positioning avoids positions that may cause or contribute to development of hip dysplasia or dislocation. The healthiest position for the hips is for the hips to fall or spread (naturally) apart to the side, with the thighs supported and the hips and knees bent. This position has been called the jockey position, straddle position, frog position, spread-squat position or human position. Free movement of the hips without forcing them together promotes natural hip development.
SEE: Hip Healthy Swaddling
Some types of baby carriers and other equipment may interfere with healthy hip positioning. Such devices include but are not limited to baby carriers, slings, wraps, pouches, car seats, exercisers, rockers, jumpers, swings, bouncers and walkers, and molded seating items. These devices could inadvertently place hips in an unhealthy position, especially when used for extended periods of time. Any device that restrains a baby’s legs in an unhealthy position should be considered a potential risk for abnormal hip development. It is also important to assess the size of the baby and match the device and carrier to the size of the child so that the hips can be in a healthy position during transport. Parents are advised to research the general safety and risks of any device they wish to use. When in doubt, we recommend involving your primary health-care provider in any further decision-making that may be medically relevant.
These series of drawings demonstrate typical devices that allow healthier hip positioning in comparison to those which do not.
Back to Prevention of Hip Dysplaisa
Baby Carriers, Seats, & Other Equipment
IHDI Educational Statement
Hip Health in baby carriers, car seats, swings, walkers, and other equipmentSummary Statement: The Medical Advisory Board of the IHDI does not endorse nor advise against any particular baby carrier or other equipment. The purpose of this educational statement is to provide information about healthy hip development to guide manufacturers in the development of safe designs of infant equipment, and to help parents make informed choices about the devices they use for their babies. Parents and caregivers are encouraged to choose a baby carrier that allows healthy hip positioning, in addition to other safety considerations. When babies are carried, the hips should be allowed to spread apart with the thighs supported and the hips bent.
Education Statement: The IHDI recommends healthy hip positioning for all babies to encourage normal hip development. Within the womb, a baby spends a long time tucked in the fetal position, in which both hips and knees are bent or flexed.
Baby in normal (fetal) womb position.
The most unhealthy position for the hips during infancy is when the legs are held in extension with the hips and knees straight and the legs brought together, which is the opposite of the fetal position. The risk to the hips is greater when this unhealthy position is maintained for a long time. Healthy hip positioning avoids positions that may cause or contribute to development of hip dysplasia or dislocation. The healthiest position for the hips is for the hips to fall or spread (naturally) apart to the side, with the thighs supported and the hips and knees bent. This position has been called the jockey position, straddle position, frog position, spread-squat position or human position. Free movement of the hips without forcing them together promotes natural hip development.
SEE: Hip Healthy Swaddling
Some types of baby carriers and other equipment may interfere with healthy hip positioning. Such devices include but are not limited to baby carriers, slings, wraps, pouches, car seats, exercisers, rockers, jumpers, swings, bouncers and walkers, and molded seating items. These devices could inadvertently place hips in an unhealthy position, especially when used for extended periods of time. Any device that restrains a baby’s legs in an unhealthy position should be considered a potential risk for abnormal hip development. It is also important to assess the size of the baby and match the device and carrier to the size of the child so that the hips can be in a healthy position during transport. Parents are advised to research the general safety and risks of any device they wish to use. When in doubt, we recommend involving your primary health-care provider in any further decision-making that may be medically relevant.
These series of drawings demonstrate typical devices that allow healthier hip positioning in comparison to those which do not.
Car Seat Positioning
Not Recommended:
Tight car seats prevent legs from spreading apart.
Tight car seats prevent legs from spreading apart.
Better:
Wider car seats provide room for legs to be apart, putting the hips in a better position.
Wider car seats provide room for legs to be apart, putting the hips in a better position.
Baby Harnesses
Not Recommended:
Thigh NOT supported to the knee joint. The resulting forces on the hip joint may contribute to hip dysplasia.
Thigh NOT supported to the knee joint. The resulting forces on the hip joint may contribute to hip dysplasia.
Better:
Thigh is supported to the knee joint. The forces on the hip joint are minimal because the legs are spread, supported, and the hip is in a more stable position.
Thigh is supported to the knee joint. The forces on the hip joint are minimal because the legs are spread, supported, and the hip is in a more stable position.
Baby Slings
Not Recommended:
Baby carriers that force the baby's legs to stay together may contribute to hip dysplasia.
Baby carriers that force the baby's legs to stay together may contribute to hip dysplasia.
Better:
Baby carriers should support the thigh and allow the legs to spread to keep the hip in a stable position.
Baby carriers should support the thigh and allow the legs to spread to keep the hip in a stable position.
Back to Prevention of Hip Dysplaisa
Thursday, April 19, 2012
How to Murder a Sweater (or How to Make Wool Longies)
Since it's become such a sudden obsession, I thought I'd share how easy it is to murder a sweater. First, you have to find a 100% wool sweater. Salvation Army stores are a haven as well as Good Will. Ours has a family day every Wednesday, where everything except new arrivals is half off. Merino Wool, New Wool, Cashmere, Virgin Wool, and even Lambs Wool* are all good as long as they are no less than 95% wool.
Once you have acquired your wool, you get to torture it. Hot wash and a cold rinse, then drying it on High Heat in the dryer. It will scream for mercy and be half it's size when it comes out. This is to felt the wool fibers so they are thicker and more sturdy.
After washing and drying you are ready to mutilate your sweater. I have some not so pretty pictures to help explain.
Once you have acquired your wool, you get to torture it. Hot wash and a cold rinse, then drying it on High Heat in the dryer. It will scream for mercy and be half it's size when it comes out. This is to felt the wool fibers so they are thicker and more sturdy.
After washing and drying you are ready to mutilate your sweater. I have some not so pretty pictures to help explain.
First take a pair of pants that fits you baby right now or the next size up.
Turn one leg inside out..
and stuff it into the other leg.
So it looks like this.
Place it onto a piece of newspaper..
trace and cut so you have a pattern. Please make sure you allot room for the seam by making it taller, longer and a bit wider in the bum for the seam.
Then take an innocent sweater...this one is 100% lambs wool
* When felting lambs wool, don't do it in a machine. Soak it in HOT water for 20 mins, do a cold rinse and then dry on high. Otherwise it falls apart and you will have wool bunnies in your lint catcher and all over the floor.
Cut the arms off of the sweater, ignore any screams.
I like to turn up the cuff just in case of any growth spurts.
Place your pattern on top of the sleeves, in this case they are going to be leggings.
They don't have to be perfect, but get them as similar as possible.
Cut off a piece of the bottom cuff to use for a waist.
Like you did when making the pattern, turn one sleeve inside out and stuff the right-side out into the inside out.
Top : right side. Bottom : inside.
Sew around to make the crotch seam, if single stitching, do two rows for strength. Leave top open.
Voila.
Now taking, the bottom cuff, wrap it around the waist and cut it 1/2 to 1 inch shorter than the waist length. Sew ends together to make a circl. Then holding it tight, sew onto the waist of pants while stretching it. Sew two rows if desired.
And now you have a simple pair of longies to keep your baby comfy and warm while staying dry.
After you have made them, you are going to need to wash them in a wool safe soap and lanolize them, since felting them stripped any lanolin out of the fibers. After washing them in the wool wash, you have to do a separate lanolin treatment. You don't need any fancy lanolin, if you have some left of the kind you used while nursing, that works fine. You will need a pea size amount, squeeze it into a bottle of HOT water, shake well until the water is cloudy, then add to a bucket/sink of room temp water. Add you wool and squeeze gently to work the lanolin in. Then leave for 30mins to an hour. Gently squeeze water out and wrap in a towel to absorb any extra moisture. Lay flat to dry. You may need to lanolize your wool twice before it has reached peak water resistance.
Have fun sweater murdering. :o)
Women Take 'Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 years Ago'
I recently read this article and it made me wonder what we are doing with modern birth? Is is good that our labors are taking longer if the babies are more likely to survive? Or is it bad, because our country also has a horrificly high c-section rate? I agree with the final thought of our delivery practices needing to be reevaluated.
Women Take 'Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 years Ago'
Pregnant women are spending more time in labour now than 50 years ago, a recent study has discovered.
The research by the National Institutes of Health analysed nearly 140,000 births and compared data on deliveries in the early 1960s up until the early 2000s.
Nearly 40,000 deliveries were investigated between 1959 and 1966, and a further 100,000 births between 2002 and 2008.
They discovered that the early stages of labour (from when the cervix begins to dilate) lasts 2.6 hours longer for modern, first-time mothers compared to their counterparts in the 1960s.
Women who had previously given birth had gone through the early stages of labour two hours longer than those in the 1960s.
Researchers claim that the labour time has changed because of differences in delivery room practices.
For example, the use of epidural anesthesia (the injection of pain killer into the spinal fluid) has increased from 4% in the 1960s to more than 50% of recent births. Anesthesia is known to increase labour times.
The study also focused on how often the hormone oxytocin is given to women in labour. Oxytocin is administered to induce contractions or to speed them up when they slow down and is given to 31% of modern day women compared to 12% of pregnant women in the 1960s.
Although oxytocin is effectively designed to speed up the labour process, research suggests that it makes little, or no, difference to the length of time women spend in labour.
Another difference in birth practices that the study noted included the faded popularity of episiotomy (where a surgical incision is made to enlarge the vaginal opening to make way for the baby if labour slows down). This was usually followed by the use of forceps (a clamp-type instrument that swiftly extracts the baby from the birth canal).
However, during modern births, medical intervention is more complicated and usually includes oxytocin administration or a caesarean delivery, which involves surgically removing the baby from the womb.
Practices aside, researchers also highlighted that pregnant women weigh more than those in the 1960s. Modern pregnant women have a body mass index (BMI) of 24.9 compared to 23 for the earlier generation. Obesity during pregnancy increases the risk of complication during the birth.
Researchers concluded that modern delivery practices needed to be re-evaluated.
These findings were published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Women Take 'Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 years Ago'
The Huffington Post UK | By Kyrsty Hazell Posted: 2/04/2012 14:47 Updated: 2/04/2012 15:45
Women Take Two Hours Longer To Give Birth Now Than 50 Years Ago
The research by the National Institutes of Health analysed nearly 140,000 births and compared data on deliveries in the early 1960s up until the early 2000s.
Nearly 40,000 deliveries were investigated between 1959 and 1966, and a further 100,000 births between 2002 and 2008.
They discovered that the early stages of labour (from when the cervix begins to dilate) lasts 2.6 hours longer for modern, first-time mothers compared to their counterparts in the 1960s.
Women who had previously given birth had gone through the early stages of labour two hours longer than those in the 1960s.
Researchers claim that the labour time has changed because of differences in delivery room practices.
For example, the use of epidural anesthesia (the injection of pain killer into the spinal fluid) has increased from 4% in the 1960s to more than 50% of recent births. Anesthesia is known to increase labour times.
The study also focused on how often the hormone oxytocin is given to women in labour. Oxytocin is administered to induce contractions or to speed them up when they slow down and is given to 31% of modern day women compared to 12% of pregnant women in the 1960s.
Although oxytocin is effectively designed to speed up the labour process, research suggests that it makes little, or no, difference to the length of time women spend in labour.
Another difference in birth practices that the study noted included the faded popularity of episiotomy (where a surgical incision is made to enlarge the vaginal opening to make way for the baby if labour slows down). This was usually followed by the use of forceps (a clamp-type instrument that swiftly extracts the baby from the birth canal).
However, during modern births, medical intervention is more complicated and usually includes oxytocin administration or a caesarean delivery, which involves surgically removing the baby from the womb.
Practices aside, researchers also highlighted that pregnant women weigh more than those in the 1960s. Modern pregnant women have a body mass index (BMI) of 24.9 compared to 23 for the earlier generation. Obesity during pregnancy increases the risk of complication during the birth.
Researchers concluded that modern delivery practices needed to be re-evaluated.
These findings were published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
The Dangers of Prenatal Ultrasound
I read this bit from the book by Henci Goer and felt that I should add it to my list of things that we have been made to think is "OK" to have done while we are pregnant. I had 4 with my son and only 1 with my daughter. Since finding out about all the reactions that can occur chemically changing babies forever, I have and continue to be grateful that nothing happened to my son.
The Center for Unhindered Living
The Dangers of Prenatal Ultrasound
Read about the medical realities of prenatal testing
Ultrasound, sonograms, and dopplers use high frequency sound waves to produce an image of the baby on a viewing screen or amplify the baby's heartbeat so it can be heard more easily. NO STUDIES have been done which prove the safety of these devices, and the American Medical Association recommends AGAINST unnecessary exposure.
"Unnecessary Exposure" includes the use of ultrasound to:
1. Confirm the sex of the baby.
2. Assess gestational age (how many weeks old the baby is).
3. Assess fetal size and growth.
4. Confirm multiple pregnancy.
5. Determine fetal presentation (the position of the baby in the womb).
Many health care professionals still use ultrasound for these purposes anyway, even though the American Medical Association has not approved its use for these purposes. With the exception of confirming the sex of the baby, all these pieces of information can be obtained with hands-on skills. A fetoscope or stethoscope can detect the baby's heartbeat without the dangers of ultrasound.
According to the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, "It is not clear at this time whether ultrasound fetal monitoring is beneficial to the mother or fetus in terms of pregnancy outcome...If there is no generally acknowledged benefit to the monitoring, there is no reason to expose patients to increased cost and risk. The question of benefit has not yet been resolved...and the potential for delayed effects has been virtually ignored."
In other words, Ultrasound technology carries potential risks that have not yet been evaluated, yet many doctors are telling women that there is no risk.
Having an ultrasound is NOT essential to a healthy pregnancy. However, most doctors are trained to use expensive technology and NOT trained to use hands-on skills.
Before you allow an ultrasound to be done on you, do some research, thoroughly question your healthcare provider about safety as well as the value of the information that would be received. Don't be afraid to refuse the test if you are not comfortable with the information you have discovered. It is your constitutional right to refuse any tests you do not want.
To give you some means of comparison, I offer this analogy. Have you seen a woman with an extremely high voice break a glass by singing an extremely high pitched note? That is an example of what just ONE relatively slow sound wave can do. Ultrasound technology is based upon ultra high-frequency sound waves, which bombard the child in the womb at an extremely high rate of speed. If one slow sound wave from a woman's voice can break a glass, what can super high frequency sound waves do to your child? Ultrasound waves in laboratory experiments have been known to damage chromosomes, produce internal cellular heat which damages cells, retard the normal development of cells, and many other phenomenon.
Research That Has Been Done On Ultrasound Technology
Newnham, J.P., Evans, S.F., Michael, C.A., Stanley, F.J., & Landau, L. I. (1993). Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Lancet, 342(Oct.9), 887-891.
A study of over 1400 women in Perth, Western Australia compared pregnant mothers who had ultrasound only once during gestation with mothers who had five monthly ultrasounds from 18 weeks to 38 weeks. They found significantly higher intrauterine growth restriction in the intensive ultrasound group. These mothers gave birth to lower weight babies.
The researchers concluded that prenatal ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow exams should be restricted to clinically necessary situations. This recommendation comes at a time when ultrasound during prenatal visits has become increasingly popular and serves as a kind of entertainment feature of office check-up visits.
Campbell, J.D., Elford, R.W. & Brant, R.F. (1993). Case-Controlled Study of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Children with Delayed Speech. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149(10), 1435-1440.
Delayed speech is not a pathological or organic syndrome but developmentally defined symptom complex. Clinicians have noted an increased incidence of delayed speech in pediatric patients.
This is a matched-case control study of 72 children 2 to 8 years old presenting with delayed speech of unknown cause. The children were measured for articulation, language comprehension, language production, meta-linguisticskills, and verbal memory. When checked for ultrasound exposure, the speech-delayed children were about twice as likely to have been exposed to ultrasound than the matched controls.
The authors believe that delayed speech is a sensitive measure reflecting sub-optimal conditions for development. If ultrasound can cause developmental delays, the authors are concerned about the routine use of ultrasound and they warn against it.
Devi, P.U., Suresh, R., & Hande, M.P. (1995). Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse. Radiat Res (QMP), 141(3), 314-7.
Pregnant Swiss albino mice were exposed to diagnostic ultrasound. There were significant alterations in behavior in all three exposed groups as revealed by the decreased locomotor and exploratory activity and the increase in the number of trials needed for learning. These results indicate that ultrasound exposure during the early fetal period can impair brain function in the adult mouse.
Hande, M.P., & Devi, P.U. (1995). Teratogenic effects of repeated exposures to X-rays and/or ultrasound in mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol (NAT), 17(2), 179-88.
Pregnant Swiss mice were exposed to ultrasound, x-rays, and combinations of the two. Effects on prenatal development, postnatal growth and adult behavior were studied. U + U group showed an increase in percent growth retarded fetuses. The postnatal mortality was significantly higher only in the U + U group. In the X + U group, the exploratory activity was affected at 6 months of age. There was a significant change in the locomotor activity with a reduction in the total activity as 3 and 6 months of age in the U + U group. Latency in learning capacity was also noticed in this group. The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis.
There are many other studies that have been done, but no one seems to be paying attention to them.
Don't allow yourself to be the next guinea pig.
All the studies above address the issue of physical safety of ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound also has some very serious emotional and psychosocial side effects.
When an ultrasound is done, and the results are questionable, it can be an emotional rollarcoaster. Ultrasound technicians are wrong as often as they are right, and when a family is told that their unborn baby has some kind of defect, they will spend the rest of the pregnancy worrying, crying, and in some cases, may abort the baby because they are assured it has an abnormality.
Click Here to read an article called "Mother Rails Against Ultrasound" which chronicles one family's terrible experience with the inaccuracy of this test. In 1993, the results of the largest study ever done on ultrasound were published. It was called the RADIUS study. The original results were reported in these publications if you would like to get a copy of the study and read it for yourself.
Ewigman, B., Crane, J.P., Frigoletto, F.D., et al. Impact of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993 Sept 16;329:821-7.
LeFevre, M., Bain, R., Ewigman, B., et al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasound screening: Impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 Sept 15;169:483-9.
Basically, the study, the largest of its kind to date, states that routine ultrasound does not benefit mothers or babies in terms of pregnancy outcome. It did not reduce the number of infant or maternal deaths, and it did not lead to better care for the newborn. The only thing it did was expose the families to increased cost and risk.
One thing that is irritating are the statements commentators have made about these studies. Particularly after the 2006 publication by the National Academy of Science.. Websites like the American Academy of Radiologic Technologists stated that
It was emphasized that the study does not mean that ultrasound use on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned.
"On the contrary: ultrasound has been shown to be very beneficial in the medical context. Instead, our study warns against its non-medical use."
Do they think we are stupid? There is no difference between medical and non-medical exposure. In the hands of a doctor, it is no more safe than when done for recreational purposes.
I encourage you to do your own research, and don't listen to people's opinions, but look at the actual research that has been done. Then look deep inside yourself and consult your own inner wisdom. After reading my other article about the safety issues involved with ultrasound exposure, what does your inner wisdom tell you? Listen for that little voice to answer. Does the whole concept of ultrasound seem safe, effective, necessary, and helpful? I wish you luck in your pregnancy and birth.
Ultrasound, sonograms, and dopplers use high frequency sound waves to produce an image of the baby on a viewing screen or amplify the baby's heartbeat so it can be heard more easily. NO STUDIES have been done which prove the safety of these devices, and the American Medical Association recommends AGAINST unnecessary exposure.
"Unnecessary Exposure" includes the use of ultrasound to:
1. Confirm the sex of the baby.
2. Assess gestational age (how many weeks old the baby is).
3. Assess fetal size and growth.
4. Confirm multiple pregnancy.
5. Determine fetal presentation (the position of the baby in the womb).
Many health care professionals still use ultrasound for these purposes anyway, even though the American Medical Association has not approved its use for these purposes. With the exception of confirming the sex of the baby, all these pieces of information can be obtained with hands-on skills. A fetoscope or stethoscope can detect the baby's heartbeat without the dangers of ultrasound.
According to the World Health Organization and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, "It is not clear at this time whether ultrasound fetal monitoring is beneficial to the mother or fetus in terms of pregnancy outcome...If there is no generally acknowledged benefit to the monitoring, there is no reason to expose patients to increased cost and risk. The question of benefit has not yet been resolved...and the potential for delayed effects has been virtually ignored."
In other words, Ultrasound technology carries potential risks that have not yet been evaluated, yet many doctors are telling women that there is no risk.
Having an ultrasound is NOT essential to a healthy pregnancy. However, most doctors are trained to use expensive technology and NOT trained to use hands-on skills.
Before you allow an ultrasound to be done on you, do some research, thoroughly question your healthcare provider about safety as well as the value of the information that would be received. Don't be afraid to refuse the test if you are not comfortable with the information you have discovered. It is your constitutional right to refuse any tests you do not want.
To give you some means of comparison, I offer this analogy. Have you seen a woman with an extremely high voice break a glass by singing an extremely high pitched note? That is an example of what just ONE relatively slow sound wave can do. Ultrasound technology is based upon ultra high-frequency sound waves, which bombard the child in the womb at an extremely high rate of speed. If one slow sound wave from a woman's voice can break a glass, what can super high frequency sound waves do to your child? Ultrasound waves in laboratory experiments have been known to damage chromosomes, produce internal cellular heat which damages cells, retard the normal development of cells, and many other phenomenon.
Research That Has Been Done On Ultrasound Technology
"Prenatal exposure to ultrasound waves impacts neuronal migration in mice," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006 103: 12903-12910.
There is evidence that the exposure of pregnant mice and nonhuman primates to ultrasound waves may affect the behavior of their exposed offspring. Additionally, studies have shown that the frequent exposure of the human fetus to ultrasound waves is associated with a decrease in newborn body weight, an increase in the frequency of left-handedness, and delayed speech.
Because ultrasound energy is a high-frequency mechanical vibration, researchers hypothesized that it might influence the migration of neurons in a developing fetus. Neurons in mammals multiply early in fetal development and then migrate to their final destinations. Any interference or disruption in the process could result in abnormal brain function.
In the study, researchers injected more than 335 fetal mice at embryonic day 16 with special markers to track neuronal development. Exposure to ultrasound waves for 30 minutes or longer caused a small but statistically significant number of neurons to remain scattered within inappropriate cortical layers and in the adjacent white matter. The magnitude of dispersion of labeled neurons was highly variable but increased with duration of exposure to ultrasound waves.
Newnham, J.P., Evans, S.F., Michael, C.A., Stanley, F.J., & Landau, L. I. (1993). Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Lancet, 342(Oct.9), 887-891.
A study of over 1400 women in Perth, Western Australia compared pregnant mothers who had ultrasound only once during gestation with mothers who had five monthly ultrasounds from 18 weeks to 38 weeks. They found significantly higher intrauterine growth restriction in the intensive ultrasound group. These mothers gave birth to lower weight babies.
The researchers concluded that prenatal ultrasound imaging and Doppler flow exams should be restricted to clinically necessary situations. This recommendation comes at a time when ultrasound during prenatal visits has become increasingly popular and serves as a kind of entertainment feature of office check-up visits.
Campbell, J.D., Elford, R.W. & Brant, R.F. (1993). Case-Controlled Study of Prenatal Ultrasound Exposure in Children with Delayed Speech. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 149(10), 1435-1440.
Delayed speech is not a pathological or organic syndrome but developmentally defined symptom complex. Clinicians have noted an increased incidence of delayed speech in pediatric patients.
This is a matched-case control study of 72 children 2 to 8 years old presenting with delayed speech of unknown cause. The children were measured for articulation, language comprehension, language production, meta-linguisticskills, and verbal memory. When checked for ultrasound exposure, the speech-delayed children were about twice as likely to have been exposed to ultrasound than the matched controls.
The authors believe that delayed speech is a sensitive measure reflecting sub-optimal conditions for development. If ultrasound can cause developmental delays, the authors are concerned about the routine use of ultrasound and they warn against it.
Devi, P.U., Suresh, R., & Hande, M.P. (1995). Effect of fetal exposure to ultrasound on the behavior of the adult mouse. Radiat Res (QMP), 141(3), 314-7.
Pregnant Swiss albino mice were exposed to diagnostic ultrasound. There were significant alterations in behavior in all three exposed groups as revealed by the decreased locomotor and exploratory activity and the increase in the number of trials needed for learning. These results indicate that ultrasound exposure during the early fetal period can impair brain function in the adult mouse.
Hande, M.P., & Devi, P.U. (1995). Teratogenic effects of repeated exposures to X-rays and/or ultrasound in mice. Neurotoxicol Teratol (NAT), 17(2), 179-88.
Pregnant Swiss mice were exposed to ultrasound, x-rays, and combinations of the two. Effects on prenatal development, postnatal growth and adult behavior were studied. U + U group showed an increase in percent growth retarded fetuses. The postnatal mortality was significantly higher only in the U + U group. In the X + U group, the exploratory activity was affected at 6 months of age. There was a significant change in the locomotor activity with a reduction in the total activity as 3 and 6 months of age in the U + U group. Latency in learning capacity was also noticed in this group. The results indicate that repeated exposures to ultrasound or its combination with X-rays could be detrimental to the embryonic development and can impair adult brain function when administered at certain stages of organogenesis.
There are many other studies that have been done, but no one seems to be paying attention to them.
Don't allow yourself to be the next guinea pig.
All the studies above address the issue of physical safety of ultrasound procedures. Ultrasound also has some very serious emotional and psychosocial side effects.
When an ultrasound is done, and the results are questionable, it can be an emotional rollarcoaster. Ultrasound technicians are wrong as often as they are right, and when a family is told that their unborn baby has some kind of defect, they will spend the rest of the pregnancy worrying, crying, and in some cases, may abort the baby because they are assured it has an abnormality.
Click Here to read an article called "Mother Rails Against Ultrasound" which chronicles one family's terrible experience with the inaccuracy of this test. In 1993, the results of the largest study ever done on ultrasound were published. It was called the RADIUS study. The original results were reported in these publications if you would like to get a copy of the study and read it for yourself.
Ewigman, B., Crane, J.P., Frigoletto, F.D., et al. Impact of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. N Engl J Med 1993 Sept 16;329:821-7.
LeFevre, M., Bain, R., Ewigman, B., et al. A randomized trial of prenatal ultrasound screening: Impact on maternal management and outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993 Sept 15;169:483-9.
Basically, the study, the largest of its kind to date, states that routine ultrasound does not benefit mothers or babies in terms of pregnancy outcome. It did not reduce the number of infant or maternal deaths, and it did not lead to better care for the newborn. The only thing it did was expose the families to increased cost and risk.
One thing that is irritating are the statements commentators have made about these studies. Particularly after the 2006 publication by the National Academy of Science.. Websites like the American Academy of Radiologic Technologists stated that
It was emphasized that the study does not mean that ultrasound use on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned.
"On the contrary: ultrasound has been shown to be very beneficial in the medical context. Instead, our study warns against its non-medical use."
Do they think we are stupid? There is no difference between medical and non-medical exposure. In the hands of a doctor, it is no more safe than when done for recreational purposes.
I encourage you to do your own research, and don't listen to people's opinions, but look at the actual research that has been done. Then look deep inside yourself and consult your own inner wisdom. After reading my other article about the safety issues involved with ultrasound exposure, what does your inner wisdom tell you? Listen for that little voice to answer. Does the whole concept of ultrasound seem safe, effective, necessary, and helpful? I wish you luck in your pregnancy and birth.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
In Bulk
As part of my new resolution to buying more things that are local and organic. I started visiting/shopping at our not-as-close-as-I-wish-it-were Co-op. I grew up with a local Co-op in my home town that was about 5 blocks from my parents house. It used to be a place a refuge for me when I felt overwhelmed. The funny part is that they all seem to have the same type of smell. As sad as it is, that's the simple reason why I hadn't been to this one yet. It's about a 15min drive from our house, it involves going on the highway and almost endless stoplights and traffic. That aside, it's a whole new world inside. Local produce teeming from almost every aisle, yet I did learn that you should check the labels. They had grapes there, which I almost bought, until it was spotted that they were conventional, not organic or local. Not thanks. One of the things that I want to really learn how to shop for though, is BULK foods.
Now, this is bulk as in no packaging. Not 3 or 4 of the same package stuck together and wrapped up for sale.
Today I am proud to say, I bought oatmeal in bulk. I brought in our clean old oatmeal container, had it weighed at the service counter, then proceeded to the bins and made an absolute mess of it. The scoop was huge, heavy and just plain awkward. I did my best to pour it into the container without spilling. But I ended up being that person who makes a huge mess, not on purpose, but just out of inexperience.
The idea of buying in bulk and having reusable containers got me thinking though. So, I went though my kitchen and found various storage containers. Then I went through my baking cabinet, the one that has bags of things falling all over the place, that decide to all fall out when you try to get that one in the back. They are now all in containers that are see through. That one is walnuts, that one is chocolate chips, and that one is powdered sugar, etc. It looks so much nicer. The fact that I didn't think of doing it before baffles me. I do it with my sugar and flours, why not with everything else? So from here on, if I need sugar, flour, wheat, pasta, trail mix, dried fruit, etc. I can take my clean, empty container with me and fill it with exactly what I need and pay for only what I need. Knowing that I am not paying extra for the fancy package, type, recipes, and descriptions. I am just paying for what I really need.
(And what I really need is an explanation as to why the heck I have a container of chocolate chips that is the same size as my flour bin.)
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
The BEST April Fools prank
I've become a fan of 'Mama Natural', her blogs and vlogs are fantastic. But this video for April Fools Day took the cake. (Blogger can't 'find' the video so that I can post it here. Sorry!)
Monday, April 9, 2012
A wooly obsession
The past few weeks I can be labeled as MIW (missing in wool). I have to admit, I'm obsessed with it. This whole new turn in my cloth diapering world is simply because about 3 months ago my daughter had a horrible diaper rash and the microfiber inserts in her pockets smelled horrible all the time. Washing them had turned into an excursion of, prewashing in warm water, soaking overnight in hot with soap, rinsing in hot 2 times and then 2 more rinses. It has just become unacceptable and simply a HUGE pain in my butt. So when the rash came and wouldn't go away, I busted out my crochet hook and whipped up my ugly woolie pattern that I used as an overnight cover with my son. Slapped on a prefold diaper and within a day her rash was gone. Completely mystified and beyond impressed. I made a trip down to our local cloth diaper shop and bought their gently used (dyed in pretty colors) prefolds, some snappis and boingos, along with some fantastic smelling wool wash. Went home, washed the diapers, and never looked back. I have since learned how to make a star, heart, bear paw, bear face, and frilly wool covers. I'm working on a pair of longies, but progress on that stopped after a visit to ETSEY with one of my bf's.
Up cycled wool longies?? My obsession monsters eyes grew large as drool started to trickle. "MUST TRY IT, NOW!!" I then found myself at the local Salvation Army on their 50% day. I raked through the racks looking for anything and everything that was 100% wool. I found 4 sweaters, 2 black, 1 brown, and 1 red. I came home and did what you are never supposed to do with wool sweaters. I washed them in HOT water and threw them in the dryer on HIGH heat. (MWAHAHAHAH) I could hear them screaming as they shrunk, but I didn't care. My fuzzy wool obsession monster was in a frenzy. I then proceeded to cut off the sleeves and sew them into pants, using either elastic or extra cuff for the waist. I then cut out the torso and made more pants. I soaked them in the gentle, organic wool wash with extra lanolin to soothe their seething dried wool fibers. It took two sessions of lanolising to get them to where they need to be for water repelling and wearing.
Upon doing this I erased one step from my daughters diaper changing routine. Instead of : diaper, cover and pants, it's : diaper and pants. So easy and she loves how quickly she can fly in full scooting crawl mode on our hard wool floors. The only downside is that they have to be washed more often because they get things on them that normal diaper covers wouldn't get, like, oatmeal, or eggs. It's okay though. I'm still not through with my sweater torturing. I'm hoping to maul and brutalize at least 3 more sweaters, this time I'm hoping they will be different colors and maybe some more cable knits.
I should also finish the one I started to crochet myself. Should being the key word here.
Why Wool?? Wool is naturally water repelling, fully breathable, and antimicrobial. Think about what kind of underwear you like to wear. Really, be honest here. You love the 100% cotton, because of how breathable they are and how comfortable they are. Same goes here with baby. As a woman, my reasons for cloth diapering were really very very simple. I don't like wearing a pad, I don't like how it feels, I don't like anything about it. Paper diapers (disposables) are just that, they are a big pad. If I don't like it, why would I put it on my kid. And after the whole pocket diaper rash thing, I can even say confidently that PUL (as wonderful as it is) is still not as breathable as wool. My baby is a happy wool baby and it makes me happy knowing that her girly bits are getting proper air flow, especially after how my OB lectured me about cotton panties. There's a reason.
Up cycled wool longies?? My obsession monsters eyes grew large as drool started to trickle. "MUST TRY IT, NOW!!" I then found myself at the local Salvation Army on their 50% day. I raked through the racks looking for anything and everything that was 100% wool. I found 4 sweaters, 2 black, 1 brown, and 1 red. I came home and did what you are never supposed to do with wool sweaters. I washed them in HOT water and threw them in the dryer on HIGH heat. (MWAHAHAHAH) I could hear them screaming as they shrunk, but I didn't care. My fuzzy wool obsession monster was in a frenzy. I then proceeded to cut off the sleeves and sew them into pants, using either elastic or extra cuff for the waist. I then cut out the torso and made more pants. I soaked them in the gentle, organic wool wash with extra lanolin to soothe their seething dried wool fibers. It took two sessions of lanolising to get them to where they need to be for water repelling and wearing.
Upon doing this I erased one step from my daughters diaper changing routine. Instead of : diaper, cover and pants, it's : diaper and pants. So easy and she loves how quickly she can fly in full scooting crawl mode on our hard wool floors. The only downside is that they have to be washed more often because they get things on them that normal diaper covers wouldn't get, like, oatmeal, or eggs. It's okay though. I'm still not through with my sweater torturing. I'm hoping to maul and brutalize at least 3 more sweaters, this time I'm hoping they will be different colors and maybe some more cable knits.
I should also finish the one I started to crochet myself. Should being the key word here.
Why Wool?? Wool is naturally water repelling, fully breathable, and antimicrobial. Think about what kind of underwear you like to wear. Really, be honest here. You love the 100% cotton, because of how breathable they are and how comfortable they are. Same goes here with baby. As a woman, my reasons for cloth diapering were really very very simple. I don't like wearing a pad, I don't like how it feels, I don't like anything about it. Paper diapers (disposables) are just that, they are a big pad. If I don't like it, why would I put it on my kid. And after the whole pocket diaper rash thing, I can even say confidently that PUL (as wonderful as it is) is still not as breathable as wool. My baby is a happy wool baby and it makes me happy knowing that her girly bits are getting proper air flow, especially after how my OB lectured me about cotton panties. There's a reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)