Posted on 07/20/2009 10:59:11 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
CHICAGO -- Researchers for the first time have linked air pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood, bolstering evidence that smog may harm the developing brain.
The results are in a study of 249 children of New York City women who wore backpack air monitors for 48 hours during the last few months of pregnancy.
They lived in mostly low-income neighborhoods in northern Manhattan and the South Bronx. They had varying levels of exposure to typical kinds of urban air pollution, mostly from car, bus and truck exhaust.
(Excerpt) Read more at silive.com ...
So, the reason kids who were born to “lower income” mothers have a lower IQ is because of air pollution.
At least they didn’t claim the IQ test was racist.
So that’s why New Yorkers are soooooo stupid.
The sample is quite skewed. This is a BS story and study
Agreed, more junk science ftw.
An interesting study which shows that this demographic group has a low IQ and then decides that it's about ... air pollution.
I wonder what Charles Murray thinks about ... air pollution.
Only a PC hypothesis is suitable.
Hhahahaha...like the study about frogs losing their apetite when their back legs were removed...they no longer jumped to catch flies...
BS....lower IQ parents (who have LOWER INCOMES) have lower IQ babies....
What is prenatal pollution? Parents watching Hollywood movies? Yes, I can see the corelation.
Once we have Nationalized Healthcare it will be another way to control the people. Also another excuse for the “Global Warming” hoaxers to tax........
What a flipping crock.
Check the IQ of momma as a control.
Correlation is not causation.
No wonder I could never get funding!
LOL! And the culture has NOTHING to do with it. LOL!
I love these bogus studies. Any excuse to tax us.
>> Correlation is not causation.
Well said.
Although the average reader will understand the meaning of “is not”, and not much else.
I’m sure genetics, drug abuse, poor nutrition, VD, and alcohol abuse had nothing at all to do with it.
There. Probably fixed it for you.
As a scientist, I have to ask what they used as a control sample? People in areas with less air pollution? If so, what about other factors not related to air pollution?
It also is evidence that most smog is in cities, the very place that dimwitted RAT voters live.
All this study proves is that the RAT base is simple minded, NOT that smog was the cause!
I know it is junk science, but the libtards love it, so let us use it to our advantage.
Based upon this study we now can understand the leftist mindset of those in NYC, LA, SF, and Chicago (to name but a few)..............
Liberalism is a mental disorder after all :)
Gee, aren’t areas of high smog and pollution the bluest of the blue on election maps?
I wonder what their excuse is for lower IQ kids born in the Appalachians?
Low IQ would Offspring of Zero voters.
WOW, it took all the way to post #18 for the perfects to come out.
I’m impressed, the cigarette canard usually hits at about post 2 or 3.
“I have to ask what they used as a control sample? People in areas with less air pollution?”
Let’s compare the IQs with Askenazi Jews in Crown Heights, since that presumably has similiar air polution.
Did they check to see if the mothers were watching MessNBC while pregnant?
“I wonder what their excuse is for lower IQ kids born in the Appalachians?”
Well, they are white, and thus inferior by breeding.
Blacks are only stupid when it’s whitey’s fault.
It works!
vaudine
Back in the 19th Century, this would explain why New Yorkers were morons. Industrial production with extensive use of hydrocarbons was so great that when the wind would shift from the industrial islands, people would drop dead in their tracks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/31pollutionli.html
That being said, dropping IQ points because your mother just moved on to an industrial waste site should be interpreted a little differently if she has lived there her whole life.
It has a hint; with dominican citizens 73% mixed, 16% white and 11% black, that still leaves the sample with less than 5% white subjects.
All subjects were selected from low income neighborhoods intentionally — kinda making sure the study couldn’t show that smog increased intelligence by exclusion.
There was also no control to ensure that the subjects always wore their monitors or perhaps left them in their residences.
This report was the return on the downpayment meant to justify full financing.
Most preliminary results reach positive matches with the hypothesis of the study for this reason.
Or there's money to be made or policy changes to be justified, then they are fine with them being stupid for any reason they can use.
“smog may harm the developing brain.”......
After all....Look what Chicago smog did for the White House...
and parents on METH, heroin, and watching SESAME street all day, instead of out in the marketplace learning...
This might explain why there are so many liberals around today, and how an Obamanation like Obama can be elected to the highest office in the world.
is the “air pollution” only in the welfare areas? strange, I thought Gore had said it was everywhere.
any excuse is better than admitting that poor parenting, or no parenting at all, does not give the IQ a chance... it isn’t pollution, stupid, it’s stupid government’s intervention into the parenting business.... welfare to non marrieds.... the more kids the more money... then welfare status for life..
The family is a holy unit.... and when it is shunned and overcome with a secular culture, the children pay the most.
Definitely an old school scholar and gentleman.
Mr. Murray would probably be outraged such a study was done without controlling for other factors, such as parental IQ.
If you read further into the article there's this little gem: Dr. Robert Geller, an Emory University pediatrician........ noted fewer mothers in the high exposure group had graduated from high school. While that might also have contributed to the high-dose children's lower IQ scores,
Followed by this whopper: "the study still provides compelling evidence implicating prenatal pollution exposure that should prompt additional studies, Geller said."
Notice in the bold, Geller claims "the study is still valid, even though it really lacks proper control studies.
What an imbecile.
How are IQ tests scored? If a 100 means that you scored with the average of the population, does that average drop as the population scores lower. That is, does a 130 mean what it did in the 1950s? When is the bench mark set? After 1000 tests each year? Curious.
Could say the same about L.A. Deb,
Hope you are not in L.A., smog heaven.
"The ingestion of many carcinogens and poisons during pregnancy may have negative consequences for the unborn child. Said carcinogens and poisons include nicotene and other associated compounds found in burning tobacco, and Jim Beam."
Seems like a no brainer to me, but I am open to contrasting opinions.
“The results are in a study of 249 children of New York City women”
I’m thinking maybe polution isn’t the variable they should be looking at here...If the study had been done in some remote mountain community where everyone is related before they get married, would they be blaming it on clean air?
Lotsa folks on this thread who apparently don't understand experimental design.
They directly controlled for "lower income" by selecting subjects in similar socioeconomic conditions; and almost certainly also included an "income" marker in their design, as well as other standard considerations.
The net result was that, income and such being equal, the presence of pollution had a statistically significant effect on IQ.
That's not particularly surprising, actually.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.