Beans, Fizz, and Ultrasonic Waves
Thursday, September 07, 2006
I swear I could eat like 3 bean burritos from Taco Bell right now. Pregnancy does crazy things. When I used to go to Taco bell and order a Mexican pizza, I'd get it with NO BEANS...every time. Now, I think I'd ask them to hand me the vat of beans so I could scoop out as many beans as I wanted to shovel onto my Mexican pizza.
I started drinking Emergen-C in the morning before I eat my cereal and it seems to curb my nausea. Must be all the B vitamins in it....plus it's refreshingly fizzy. Mmmmmm.
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about ultrasounds. There have been studies done on lab rats that concluded that the group of fetal rats (or mice - not sure which) that were exposed to a certain amount (I think it was pretty high) of ultrasonic waves ended up having cells in their tiny developing brains that did not move to the places they were supposed to move to. An article titled "Ultrasound Scans Linked to Brain Damage in Babies" was also a little disturbing. I think my husband and I have opted for NO ultrasound images, unless there is some overwhelming medical need for one. However, I'm pretty sure the little portable machine that the midwife used to listen for the heartbeat (unsuccessfully-it was way too early) at our last appointment is a doppler ultrasound device. So, I guess we've already exposed the bean to some ultrasonic waves. I may just be overly paranoid/cautious, whatever you want to call it. After all, the article about the mice said that there's no reason to think ultrasound waves have the same effect on human fetuses. The fetal mice were exposed to quite a high amount of ultrasound waves, compared to what the average human baby is exposed to for a continuous amount of time. AND the mice are really tiny, so there is less tissue between the ultrasound device and the fetus. I don't know. It's got me a little mixed up. On one hand, I'd rather be safe than sorry and just avoid ultrasounds altogether, just in case there ARE adverse effects that we are unaware of. On the other hand, I don't want to let a few somewhat inconclusive studies scare me into not checking for the baby's heartbeat at our next appointment. Another option would be to wait until I am closer to 20 weeks, when the heartbeat could be heard with a fetal stethoscope....but I think it's so reassuring to hear the heartbeat as soon as possible.
I started drinking Emergen-C in the morning before I eat my cereal and it seems to curb my nausea. Must be all the B vitamins in it....plus it's refreshingly fizzy. Mmmmmm. I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about ultrasounds. There have been studies done on lab rats that concluded that the group of fetal rats (or mice - not sure which) that were exposed to a certain amount (I think it was pretty high) of ultrasonic waves ended up having cells in their tiny developing brains that did not move to the places they were supposed to move to. An article titled "Ultrasound Scans Linked to Brain Damage in Babies" was also a little disturbing. I think my husband and I have opted for NO ultrasound images, unless there is some overwhelming medical need for one. However, I'm pretty sure the little portable machine that the midwife used to listen for the heartbeat (unsuccessfully-it was way too early) at our last appointment is a doppler ultrasound device. So, I guess we've already exposed the bean to some ultrasonic waves. I may just be overly paranoid/cautious, whatever you want to call it. After all, the article about the mice said that there's no reason to think ultrasound waves have the same effect on human fetuses. The fetal mice were exposed to quite a high amount of ultrasound waves, compared to what the average human baby is exposed to for a continuous amount of time. AND the mice are really tiny, so there is less tissue between the ultrasound device and the fetus. I don't know. It's got me a little mixed up. On one hand, I'd rather be safe than sorry and just avoid ultrasounds altogether, just in case there ARE adverse effects that we are unaware of. On the other hand, I don't want to let a few somewhat inconclusive studies scare me into not checking for the baby's heartbeat at our next appointment. Another option would be to wait until I am closer to 20 weeks, when the heartbeat could be heard with a fetal stethoscope....but I think it's so reassuring to hear the heartbeat as soon as possible.
Labels: controversial topics, food, pregnancy, tough parenting decisions









3 Comments:
I've read somewhere that B helps with nauseau. I'm glad it is working for you. Yeah!
The ultrasound is a personal thing and if you aren't comfortable with it, then stick to your guns. It is nice to hear the heartbeat though.
I put the story of my "nieghbor who tried to kill me" up.
I agree with danielle, you just do what you feel comfortable with, afterall it's your body and your baby!
Welcome to the world of motherhood. Worry and uncertainty have just become your two new best friends. ;)
I've always had ultrasounds (with the twins I had a 3-D u/s every two weeks after 20 weeks.) But I have always refused the AFP test. The other two posters are right---do what you are comfortable with.
I'm glad to hear your nausea is better.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home