Skip to main content

View Diary: Study: Traffic Related Air Pollution = X3 Chance Of Autism (122 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So you're OK with the unequality of it? (0+ / 0-)

    Seems even more evil to me that certain types of kids are going to get autism because of where they have to live.

    For example, bad education is one thing. But when it's only bad for "certain types" of kids, it's even more disgusting - IMO.

    And no, the autism can go up because there's probably a threshold where if the pollution goes above a certain point, and a certain intensity, it causes the disease.

    When pollution is dispersed over an entire city, there's probably less danger in some ways. I'd also imagine fewer kids were being diagnosed properly back then.

    I'd encourage you to rethink what you're saying. The longer people make excuses, the more kid will get autism, IMO.

    •  U R silly (9+ / 0-)

      Where did I ever say I am ok with it?

      What I said is, I'm not sure I believe the conclusion, based on one 500-kid study in one place, that proximity to heavy traffic / particulate matter is responsible for the increase in autism; and that there are a lot of exposures in those areas and this study doesn't tell us for sure whether it is particulate matter that is the cause, vs. some other set of factors. Socioeconomically related variables are highly clustered and it is hard to sort out one particular risk factor from many other potential ones.

      There isn't going to be a single answer to the question of the autism increase. Right there in your link it says -

      "As much as it would be perhaps attractive to find a single cause for autism, the reality is there are many different causes," including genetic factors, Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Steven & Alexandra Cohen Children's Medical Center of New York in New Hyde Park, N.Y., told MyHealthNewsDaily. He added that many children don't live near a major highway.
      •  So you don't believe the study, because (0+ / 0-)

        well, you don't seem to have a reason, just that there might be other factors.

        Yes, there may be other factors. I personally suspect that many forms of pollution and toxins can and probably do affect brain health in young kids. But that doesn't mean that intense levels of air pollution along traffic corridors is a pretty self-evident (and now scientifically likely) cause for much of it.

        Wherever pollution of certain types is most intense, I suspect we'll see similar results.

        Your skepticism doesn't explain why kids along traffic corridors get asthma and autism at higher rates.

        At some point, you're just in denial and that's all that can be said about it really. Pretty typical for Americans IMO.

        •  Correction: "traffic corridors ISN'T..." (0+ / 0-)
        •  Asthma (8+ / 0-)

          is a whole other story and I never said I was skeptical about that one. That has a clear and biologically plausible relationship.

          I analyze data in a related field. There are a lot of studies out there like this one. You could pretty much name your exposure and get a finding. There have been studies suggesting a relationship between diet and autism, virus exposure and autism, stress and autism, Vitamin D and autism, Tylenol and autism ... there was one that found a relationship between TV watching and autism (based on weather - where it was rainy they assumed TV watching was greater) ... on and on. Does that mean those are all, 100% accurate and causal? Maybe, or maybe some are causal and some are just a correlation, or maybe some had inaccurate findings due to small sample size or what have you. In epidemiology it generally takes more than one, relatively small and localized study to draw a major conclusion.

          •  You're confused, probably willingly so. (0+ / 0-)

            There's just as much a reason to believe in the biological relationship between breathing in pollution and having a breathing disorder as there is to brain health.

            You've mentioned lead. You know very well that these things are biologically related.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            What's fascinating is your willingness to believe it for less evil sounding forms of disease (like asthma) but not for brain damage like autism. A very typically American form of denial that serves the fossil fuel industry well and has for quite awhile.

            By your own admission, you've now admitted I'm right.

            If you accept asthma, then you're being a hypocrite by not accepting autism.

            •  Sigh (5+ / 0-)

              Really?

              Particulate matter goes into the lungs and damages the lungs, leading to asthma. Thus cockroaches in the home for example are known to increase asthma in children because they are associated with poor air quality and dust.

              That doesn't mean cockroaches in the home also increase autism. Autism isn't necessarily caused by the same mechanism.

              Smoking is a strong cause of lung cancer, but that doesn't mean it causes breast cancer (right now the evidence on that question is weak).

              In short, the relationship between an exposure and an outcome isn't identical for all types of health outcomes.

          •  pat, I applaud your quiet, thoughtful responses nt (4+ / 0-)

            Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

            by elfling on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 03:00:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site