3D/4D scans - any recommendations?

iamana1ias

gratefulforhelp wrote: »

Aren't they ultrasound scans? They use sound waves.

Still potentially dangerous and unnecessary.

mountainofdebt

Don't have an opinion on the safety aspect but to me the baby always look freaky in the 4D scans that I've seen.........

kindofagilr

alleycat` wrote: »

Correct it isn't radiation.
However, it is also an unnecessary, vanity procedure.

The HPA and FDA both say that ultrasound for medical / diagnostic purposes is a safe tool. However, they also go on to state that casual exposure to ultrasound waves during pregnancy should be avoided where possible.

If it makes the OP feel better and they understand the probably small risks then that is up to them.
To say it is totally safe when no such evidence exists one way or the other...

Also OP how will you react if the clinic find a problem?
More to the point do you know if they'll react in a professional manor also?

Thats interesting to know, but what about the mothers who have to have about 7 scans a pregnancy for various medical reasons, obv the scans must be safe or the drs wouldnt do them, so I see no difference in having a 4d scan becasue you could have been one of the women who needed more than the normal 2

iamana1ias

It's not the same frequency as a 2D scan, and medical scans never focus for prolonged periods on the head/face. You're comparing apples with pears.

emweaver

brians_daughter wrote: »

caroline, thats a little harsh.. at least back up your statement in a way the op can develop an opinion. ie post proof of study and maybe a more gentle way of putting things such as 'have you not considered the effects 4d scanning may have on your baby..here is a study that goes into details'

My SIL is a radiographer (sp)and says babies who have more scans have a higher chance of being lef handed due to some brainwave changes due to the scans etc..dunno if its true or not tho

OP....babybond comes highly rec from many - you will have a local branch no doubts

when preg with dd i had 6 scans, so 4 more than usual due to various problems and shes right handed

emweaver

Caroline73 wrote: »

4D scans take a much longer time to perform than regular dating and anomaly scans therefore increase the amount of radiation that a person is exposed too.

Dating and Anomaly scans have a purpose and are for the health of mother and baby. Unless medically necessary, then the average pregnant woman would have 1 or 2 scans lasting a few minutes.

4D scans are for pure vanity and can take up to an hour.

Unless you are 100% sure of the safety of a 4D scan (and they are still researching but iamana1ias provided a recent media link) then I think it is reasonable to ask why someone would subject their unborn child to unnecessary radiation.

the scans last on average 20 mins and dont use radiation its sound waves hence the need for a full bladder

emweaver

iamana1ias wrote: »

Still potentially dangerous and unnecessary.

if potentially dangerous im sure the nhs wouldnt provide scans

iamana1ias

emweaver wrote: »

if potentially dangerous im sure the nhs wouldnt provide scans

Are you hard of thinking?

The NHS doesn't offer 3D scans! (just in case you are still unclear, a 2D scan is not the same as a 3D scan - the 3D scan is more powerful and takes longer, which is where the risk factors come in).

Why is this concept so difficult for people to grasp?

emweaver

3d scans use the same technology and yes in some areas the nhs do offer 3d scans!

Stupid comment about being hard of hearing as Im reading your obnoxious posts not listening to them!

emweaver

3D ultrasound centers limit their scanning times to those much less than a typical 2D diagnostic scan. Though they may say their session times are twenty, thirty, or forty minutes, the actual time scanning in 3D is very limited. Because the ultrasound machine saves the live footage which is acquired in 4D, the bulk of the session is spent looking back through the saved footage, frame-by-frame, and taking the still 3D images.