Posted on 11/27/2012 8:54:50 AM PST by NormsRevenge
The possibility that autism is linked to traffic pollution has been raised by researchers in California.
Their study of more than 500 children said those exposed to high levels of pollution were three times more likely to have autism than children who grew up with cleaner air.
However, other researchers said traffic was a "very unlikely" and unconvincing explanation for autism.
The findings were presented in the Archives of General Psychiatry journal.
Data from the US Environmental Protection Agency were used to work out levels of pollution for addresses in California.
This was used to compare exposure to pollution, in the womb and during the first year of life, in 279 children with autism and 245 without.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
—snip—
One of the challenges with this style of study is that it is difficult to account for every aspect of life which might affect the probability of developing autism, such as family history.
It means the study cannot say that autism is caused by traffic pollution, merely that there could be a link between the two.
Sophia Xiang Sun, from the University of Cambridge’s autism research centre, argued that cutting pollution would be a good idea anyway.
—snip—
well autism could also be linked to global climate change!
Just think about it!!
:-)
The truth of the matter is AUTISM and CLIMATE CHANGE are LINKED TO LIBERALISM.
“Their study of more than 500 children said those exposed to high levels of pollution were three times more likely to have autism than children who grew up with cleaner air.”
The above statement reflects the stupidity of modern science that relies on mere statistics and correllation, disregarding that correllation is not causation.
Correllation only proves you can draw your own line connecting the dots of two data points occurring in the same time-context. It proves zilch about cause.
Another study could find that among the same 500 surveyed, among those who experiences high levels of pollution, they/their parents also ate more often at MacDonalds, and they/their parents often watched more hours of TV, and they/their parents ate more white bread, or more red meat. What would ANY such statistical correllations prove? Zilch.
And academica blames everyone outside of academia for the low standing that science has in the public mind today, when it is they who have brought that low standing on to science by their scientific absurdities.
It’s not about grant money. It’s about forcing people out of their cars.
Maybe women in areas with less traffic congestion went outside more often during their pregnancy and gave their fetus the necessary vitamin D.
Maybe women in areas with less traffic congestion went outside more often during their pregnancy and gave their fetus the necessary vitamin D.
Suppose anyone will notice the blend in the gasoline has changed? Maybe for the worse?
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.