Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •   (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, chimpy, Andrew F Cockburn, ebohlman

    "In order to prevent panic among parents in urban areas, US media is quick to point out that the study doesn't "prove" that autism is caused by air pollution"

    no, that's called pointing out that there's a distinction between correlation and causation.

    Are you also an anti-vaxxer?

    •  I'm less convinced by the vaccine argument (0+ / 0-)

      Although I suspect that there's more than one type of high level toxicity that causes these forms of brain damage.

      I'd bet that kids living in houses with toxic fumes from certain improperly installed construction materials might face the same problem.

      I think it's about pollution, of various kinds.

      And I think the traffic pollution along major corridors is a HUGE problem regarding kids' health, including autism. I think there's probably a threshold of intensity that has to be reached before these things happen (the study reinforces this belief), but I also think that these intense levels are reached in certain areas of our country far more commonly than we suspect, in many ways - however I think traffic pollution is a MAJOR one.

      Wherever pollution is most intense, and if it's the right kind, I'm convinced it's a big problem wrt autism, and a truly evil form of denial that our society has embraced.

      •  It's good that you're "less" convinced by the vax (8+ / 0-)

        argument, because the vax argument has been disproven again and again, and in fact Wakefield lost his license to practice, grounds of Fraud.

        But the vax argument ( Vax Fallacy?) is a very good example of why folks are looking for more data.

        Lotta people freaked out over one study. Lotta folks looked, and still look, like fools.

        Correlation | causation.

        Science thing.

        •  I don't recall ever seeing a responsibly done (0+ / 0-)

          study that convinced me regarding vaccines.

          I've never followed that line of thinking, because to me it was always just another of those arguments used to delay addressing the real culprit: certain types of intense pollution that the adults in our society refuse to address, because of their gluttony and greed and their anti-intellectual eagerness to hate science.

          •  I also think certain Christians (0+ / 0-)

            and other religious people targeted medicine for their own purposes, and I'm always skeptical of that form of anti-intellectualism - also because the same Christians are tied at the hip to the fossil fuel industry politically.

          •  "Hating science" (7+ / 0-)

            is not what's going on when people point out that correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

            Personally I don't have anything invested in the question of whether or not pollution causes autism; finding out it's true wouldn't affect me materially.  I don't live in a pollution corridor, and I don't drive, and I already think pollution is a proven detriment to the health of children and adults alike and should be actively minimized.

            I don't think there's any need to accuse me of greed or bias when I say that this study is not proof of anything.

            •  That's not all that's going on here (0+ / 0-)

              People are making up wild alternate theories to avoid confronting the very likely realities coming out in this study.

              They're also engaging in absurd intellectual hypocrisy regarding which diseases they accept being connected to pollution and those they don't.

              If it were just about making points about studies, that'd be one thing, but it's hardly about that in most of the comments here.

              It's about absurd levels of denial that betray a larger problem in American society regarding our refusal to address pollution. It's about people in denial, a truly evil form of denial that's not just about the study itself, but about a larger American sociopathy.

              •  Okay, here's the trouble. (6+ / 0-)

                You're saying "very likely realities coming out in this study", and you've also said that you've always believed this study's conclusion to be the case.  That is not science; that is confirmation bias.

                I don't have a position on the topic to defend.  You clearly do, and it's one that you had before this study came out.  And you are accusing too many commenters in this thread of not taking the issue seriously, and not respecting science, because they are not taking the study as proof of your position.

                There is rampant greed and evil and denial of science in this country, and it does a great deal of harm.  That doesn't mean everybody who disagrees with you on the question of what causes autism is greedy and evil and science-denying.

                Correlation is not causation.  Pointing that out is not science-denying; it is science-affirming.

                •  That's your conspiracy theory (0+ / 0-)

                  However, my diary isn't a conspiracy.

                  Yes, I've always suspected pollution to be the cause, because pollution affects neurological functions.

                  And yes, the study backs that up in terms of autism.

                  Just because science backs up common sense, it's not a conspiracy against the fossil fuel industry, even though they'll usually thrown everything against the wall to make people believe it is.

              •  "People are making up wild alternate theories " (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FourthOfJulyAsburyPark, Mrs M

                the irony of you saying this is delicious

          •  Well, apparently there was a study done that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            suggests a link between pregnant mothers getting the flu and autism which means flu shots for pregnant mothers actually reduce the risk of autism.  Sorry I don't have any links, it was on the news within the past week or so.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 06:17:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Are you seeing plots? (0+ / 0-)
            it was always just another of those arguments used to delay addressing the real culprit
      •  oh you're "less convinced" by the vaccine argument (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        yeah, your credibility to challenge anyone here on "science" is non-existent

    •  Laugh line: "to prevent panic ..., US media ..." (2+ / 0-)

      Since when has the media resisted a chance to stoke a little panic? I hope someone has a DVR running when an announcer cuts into a show saying, "tune in at eleven for some geeky report that's probably nothing."

      Why is there a Confederate Flag flying in Afghanistan?

      by chimpy on Tue Nov 27, 2012 at 02:03:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, the media is going to go all in (0+ / 0-)

        against the fossil fuel industry. They have such a great track record on that one.

        You believe that, huh?

        Of course, you've got to believe all manner of ridiculous shit to hold the positions you do.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site