Here's the article by Perera et al. in a pdf format.
Effect of Prenatal Exposure to Airborne Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons on Neurodevelopment in the First Three Years of Life Among Inner-City Children
Posted on 05/30/2006 3:05:03 PM PDT by neverdem
EXCLUSIVE
Children exposed to high levels of city air pollution while in the womb are nearly three times more likely to have mental deficiencies than other kids, an explosive Columbia University study has found.
The analysis compared the learning ability of 183 3-year-olds from Harlem, Washington Heights and the South Bronx with the level of pollutants they were exposed to before birth. The moms wore air monitors while they were pregnant, and the kids are being studied over a number of years.
The study found that 42 kids exposed to the highest readings of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in utero - mostly exhaust fumes from cars, buses and trucks, as well as power generators - scored 5.7 points lower on cognitive tests than did kids in the sample who were subjected to lower levels of pollutants. The scores were 6 percent lower than the other kids - but that means the risk of being developmentally disabled for the most-exposed 3-year-olds was 2.9 times greater, because the kids tended to fall below a crucial cutoff score.
Such delays in cognitive development could lead to academic difficulties in literacy and math when the youngsters attend school, the study authors claim.
The researchers said the findings were groundbreaking because they were unaware of any other inquiry linking exposure of pollutants in the womb to the mental development of kids several years later. Prior studies have shown that pollutants can reduce fetal growth.
In-utero exposure to pollutants did not have a significant impact on mental development at ages 1 and 2, the report said, and researchers do not know why it took time for the problems to appear. "This is the first time it's been shown that in-utero exposure to air pollutants is linked to delayed cognitive development at age 3," said chief researcher Dr...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why am I not surprized to see this is a NY Post headline?
what does it matter what happens to a baby before it is born? the supreme court has told us that it isn't a baby until it's born... so how could pollutants hurt something that doesn't exist and doesn't matter? or at most is an unwanted tumor?
I said something similar to that to a woman at my workplace on day. Her reply, it shouldn't and doesn't matter unless I want it. Then she proceeded to tell me that I'm a typical white man and should keep my opinions off of her body. Go figure!
Harlem, South Bronx, washington heights >>HMMM suspect information.
|
|
I've long suspected this also contributes to bad accents and poor grammar. |
We must have some REALLY pure air at home.
You used logic and factual analysis rather then feeeeeeelings, which are tools of the evil white male supremicist world domination conspiracy.
For shame! :)
The nature of life in the modern world being what it is, we could just as easily, and just as accurately, say "Air less thinky, kids more stinky."
Causation really doesn't seem to be included in this study. First 3 years of life in the areas of the study will make just about any child stupid, be it the infant who arrived from D.R. or a native born child.
Pollution might be a serious part, but socio-economic and cultural factors, as well as sound and light pollution, low quality food stuffs, restricted movement(apartment, daycare centers), lack of social interaction due to the poor quality daycare, etc. all factor in. It's called the real world.
This study had no control group of any sort.
Can't wait until the NYC City Council tackles this issue.
Take the five dumbest kids, stick them in homeschool or a Catholic school for five years ... then see if they are still the dumbest.
maybe that explains why liberalism is cenered in cities.
huh... intersting. Did they control for diet or medication in the expectant mothers? Did they also look at other factors such inherited traits?
I'm not saying there isn't a link with pollution, but there is definitely a link when it comes to nutrition. I woud think anything that becomes ingested (including pollution) by mom would effect the brain development (among other things) of an unborn baby.
LOL, it's that allergen filter in the A/C.
It sure explains a lot about nutty city dwellers and their idiot offspring.
This is really evidenced by the Red/Blue county maps. Most of the Blue areas have the worst air.
I actually read this article today. The interviewees are mostly late teens, early twenties, unemployed and of diverse backgrounds. NYS and NYC provide very well for nutritional needs.
Great headline! Gotta love that NY Post.
If this is true, than kids should be considerably brighter and scoring higher test results now. The air has been getting noticeably cleaner over the last several decades, so children should be getting higher test scores.
Hmm, that does not exactly answer my question, though it does address it in the larger scheme of things. What I was getting at is did they account for differences in nutrition and IQ. I guess I am wondering if as well as keeping track of the air they breathed did they have the mothers keep a log of what they consumed (not just food) and account for it in the study.
It just seems to me that there are too many variables to control for that were not addressed. The study very well may have accounted for everything, but if they don't document it, how credible is the report? In addition it seems like an awful small sample group in a concentrated area. Just my 2 cents.
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.
