Skip to comments.Environmental pollution linked to autism, schizophrenia, study shows
Posted on 06/07/2014 2:04:11 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Exposure to environmental pollution may cause brain changes that make people more vulnerable to developing autism or schizophrenia, according to a new study published in Environmental Heath Perspectives.
This research falls in line with a 2013 study published in JAMA Psychiatry, which demonstrated an epidemiological link between pollution and autism; the researchers found that children who lived in areas with high levels of traffic pollution seemed to be more likely to be diagnosed with the neurodevelopmental disorder. [ ]
While most research on pollution focuses on large-particle pollutionthe only type monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencythis research focused on the effects of exposure to lesser-known superfine particles.
That kind of air pollution produces inflammation; it is going to produce inflammation peripherally and in the brain as well. And when you produce inflammation in the brain, you can kill cells there, (Deborah) Cory-Slechta said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
oh poo.....aren’t they using aborted babies embryos in vaccinations??
The problem with autism is that they’ve used such a broad brush, just like they did with ADHD, kids are getting labeled who are absolutely normal.
(Now run around waving your hands in the air and screaming "Wesa gonna die-ee!".)
Plenty of correlation out there, but that isn't causation.
what a steaming pile
Schizophrenia is an inherited mental issue, because if you have two identical twins, and note identical not paternal. If one has schizophrenia there is a 100% chance the other one has it also...same DNA.
Autism? Maybe once they find out the real cause of Autism it will indicate the reason the person has it.
Environmental...NO. More propaganda.
Wonder if this data holds up in places like China, India, Brazil and Russia? (Not much traffic pollution in North Korea)
All the children on the Southern Plains would have autism because the sand blows in the spring and fall, which is large particulate pollution. My family has been there for generations and knew not one child with autism.
But using this woman’s thesis, people ought not live in cities .more pollution there. Will the government start depopulating Democrat cities?
Correlational study only with a spurious finding.
Look, homicides can be found to be higher when there are full moons on hot summer nights. But do full moons cause homicides? No!
I wonder who the funding source was for this study which will surely now be used as “scientific” evidence that pollution from industries and power plants is justification for their regulation under Obama’s Cap and Trade law.
California has 9 of the worst 25 cities for air pollution (not C02 but soot, ozone, and smog). Texas has none.
But Texas cities like Dallas import dirty coal to burn in their power plants while California has no coal power plants and instead imports coal power from Nevada, Arizona and Utah. The asthma rates in California, Texas, Arizona, Utah and Nevada are roughly the same. But those kind of self-obvious statistics are not validated by studies.
Science in the Middle Ages was always in the service of the Kings (alchemy was used to scare other nations that gold could be produced out of rocks that could be used to hire a mercenary army to win wars).
With secularization in modern societies, scientism has replaced science as the great legitimizer and authority structure to support governments. And obligingly, governments in welfare state oblige with $2 billion of funding for global warming research and bogus studies on childhood maladies supposedly linked to air pollution. Big money scientists are __ores and government their pimps.
It’s closer to 80% for identicals:
So people with autism and schizophrenia are environmental polluters... who knew.
“Exposure to environmental pollution may cause brain changes that make people more vulnerable to developing autism”......
I’m not buying it.
If the authors had blamed marijuana instead of pollution, everybody would agree with them. Same junk science, different bias.
No sooner said than done.
Yes for the actual schizophrenia, but you can have a gene and be pre dispositioned to something yet never actually get it, so if you are an identical twin with the same DNA as your twin, then you would have to have the gene. That is 100% with gene in identical twins whether both actually diagnose with overt symptoms or not.
Schizophrenia develops in boys/men most often between ages of 16-24 unless it has changed statistically in last 10 years.
Where’s the “Not This Sh!t Again” guy when you need him?
Right, but that means that environment plays a part too, because not all those with the gene develop it.
That is absolutely not true. One of my two sons has Schizoaffective Disorder (like having Schizophrenia and bipolar together). (My other son is an Air Force pilot). As a result, since 2006 I have been a teacher for a National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) signature program called "Family to Family." Please see this page for info on this terrific program that NAMI offers for free to family members with an ill loved one: >> Family-to-Family
Family to Family is a 12-week education course to educate family members who have a loved one with a diagnosed mental illness. In addition to having taught Family to Family (Next Wednesday I will finish teaching my 15th 12-week course), I am also my state's program director for Family to Family.
As I type this, I am having a cup of coffee in my hotel room in Crystal City (Near DC) preparing to go to a class taught by national NAMI trainers so I can return home and train new Family to Family teachers throughout my state. In other words, I have some background in this subject.
It is true absolutely that there is a genetic component to Schizophrenia, but there have been extensive twin studies that prove that it is not genetics alone that determines whether someone develops this illness. In the Family to Family class we teach about the concordance rates for developing Schizophrenia based on other first-order family members. When we talk about identical twins, we talk about twin studies that show that there is not a 100 percent chance of developing the illness just because an identical twin has it. They have long known that illnesses like Schizophrenia are definitely genetics-based, but what is passed on in the genes is not a definite certainty you will develop the illness as is the case with, for example, Huntington's decease. Instead, what is passed on is a predisposition to develop the illness. But what researchers are trying to determine is what causes that "second hit" that triggers the illness in people. There are many theories out there as to what might cause someone with the genetic pre-disposition to actually develop the illness - environmental factors are certainly one possibly, so I'm not as inclined to dismiss this study out of hand. I'd rather read the research with an open mind and see how the study was conducted.
I'm just glad that people are at least studying these illnesses seriously - something that has not been happening until probably the 1980's. Before that, the "common knowledge" was that Schizophrenia was simply a character flaw or the result of poor parenting. Serious brain research has lagged far behind research for other illnesses like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Sorry for the tome, but this is a topic that is VERY near and dear. Now I must head out to attend my NAMI training class.
Agreed - see my reply #20
I’m sorry to hear about your sons.
Would be interested, however, on whether with your perspective and involvement you have any thoughts on better assuring that the afflicted get the care they need—and that that small percentage who would go off violently are kept from doing damage.
The comment I made should have included the term ‘gene’. If you check on identical twins they have the same DNA which means 100% chance if one has schizophrenia gene, the other one has the gene...whether or not they develop it...period.
I think I made that clear in my reply to another poster who said it was an 80% chance of developing schizophrenia if the other one had it. I clarified to them that I am talking about the “gene for schizophrenia”, which may not always manifest. Same DNA is Same DNA.
Schizoaffective Disorder is not the topic here....it has another element to it according to you, so not the exact same issue.
Schizophrenia is explained in Abnormal Psychology, that I took in college among other psychologies to get my CJ Degree....a required course in my discipline.
You can be on all the program studies you want, but reading comprehension needs to be applied. I am sorry you only read the first comment and not the corrected second comment, which corrected my actual comment. There are varying percentages on identical twins...some say 60% some say more.
So my question to you is ‘Are your twins identical or paternal’ because we are only talking about IDENTICAL TWINS here.
So where there are more people, there are more sick kids. Weird.
Junk science of skunk science.
Excuse me...why did you not read the article from the genetics professionals I provided.
Please do not comment about this again as you don’t bother reading the information I provided in the comment...unbelievable. Go home and argue with someone else...this isn’t about being right on FR it’s about genetics research.
This is not my opinion it is the facts from professional genetic researchers:
Thank you, someone who gets what I said, as well as what I meant.
When they say environment ( I don’t think of weather, fog, or environmental) I think it s more about where they go and what they are exposed to.... meaning their twin sibling may not have been exposed to the same thing. Such as toxins at a place where it’s unknown, etc. Do you know what I mean there?
I agree about the actual development of the Schizophrenia at about 50-80%....I took classes a long time ago, but the standard pressure of environment like sports, stresses, hormones, etc the schizophrenia hit most males between ages of 16-24 on average. I don’t know if that’s the same statistic now, but if one identical twin played football and one didn’t, that stress could cause the onset.
Here is link...and scroll down to second part of article where it claims 50%%, but I’ve seen 50-60-80 % in various places.
Sorry forgot to post the link...lol
They don’t know anything.
Sorry if I did not see your corrected comment, I was in a rush to get to my class. My only point is there is more to developing Schizophrenia than genetics (and it’s more complex than “a gene”). Genetics plays a role certainly, but we really don’t have all the answers as to what things cause that second hit, so that I’m not as inclined to poo poo an environmental study as some might be.
I will send you a note tonight when done with my training today.
One more reason to destroy the coal industry and impose massive tax increases and rate hikes on the poorest of the poor: “It’s for the children! How can you be so heartless as to deny this settled science?!”
I think science is finding a lot more information out there than when some of us went to school...and although it does not negate most of what we learned ...it does open up new avenues of understanding. I realized you hadn’t read the other post.
I think it’s wonderful that you are involved. Especially because you have first hand knowledge others will never see.
I don’t think we know yet how one identical twin will get schizophrenia when another one will not..although environment somehow plays a part....the definition of environment in this case is not fog, weather, or something the twins would have in common. Most likely it is factor X...something one comes in contact with or has inside... that the other one does not, probably over a prolonged period. And other factors that cause other mental illnesses could be at play...like stress or brain chemicals...etc.
However, that is my belief not a scientist study.
The important part of understanding the identical twins and genes is that 50-80% do both get schizophrenia, although the percentage varies in the studies, maybe due to geography, who knows. That trigger element may be more available or in stronger contact in certain areas than others...just speculation here.
However an over 50-80 tells us genes do play a part...so it’s not the percentage that doesn’t get it that tells us this, it’s the percentage that does.
Do you understand what I am saying from a scientific point of view? I’m not discounting what you say at all. The important issue is that ‘identical twins’ are unique in the fact that their DNA is identical....
BTW, Haldol has been found to be antimicrobial.
100% of smokers don’t develop lung cancer. Is lung cancer mostly genetic or mostly environmental?
If those with the genetic predisposition were never exposed to cigs would they develop lung cancer?
I’d have to research to see if you can just dismiss this. If they are correct that small-particle pollution is the problem, remember that because the EPA measures large-particle pollution, we’ve been spending billions of dollars on mitigation of that type of particle. It could be that some mitigation actually generates more small-particle pollution.
What if it turns out that catalytic converters produce more of a type of pollution that is damaging, than they remove?
A demonstration that seemed to suggest a link.
Smoking cigarettes is giving into a temptation one should have had better sense than to get involved with....I live with the effects of a habit of former smoking by my spouse ever day. He is on oxygen 24/7, Crohn s, and Rheumatoid Arthritis. All can be tied to smoking. And being the caregiver of a chronically ill person if you don’t smoke is not fun.
Being a smart aleck when you don’t know what another person has to deal with on a daily basis makes your nonsense insensitive....and unnecessary.
I was pointing out the fallacy of something being either environmental or genetic. Most afflictions are both.
My paternal grandfather smoked 3 packs of unfiltered camels for 65 years. Died of complications from a broken hip. His daughter, my aunt, has smoked 3 packs a day now for 60 years. No cancer in that family at all. Even though they all smoke like chimneys. And weigh 300+lbs.
Clearly it’s not just the cigs involved here.
If only the cigarette companies had used the ‘it’s genetics’ to explain lung cancer. My family would have been the poster children for this particular explanation. They’d have been wrong, obviously, but it’s not just environmental either.
BTW, no respiratory diseases in that family either. In spite of the fact that they’ve all smoked for decades. My aunt is in her mid 70’s now. No real complications other than her overweight issues, mainly mobility ones and minor ones at that. No arthritis, either.
That particular family regularly lives to be 100. In spite of doing every single bad thing the medical establishment rails against.
I always figured I had a protective ‘out’ with smoking should I decide to try. That protective ‘out’ being genetics of some sort.