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
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've long suspected this also contributes to bad accents and poor grammar. |
We must have some REALLY pure air at home.
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."
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.
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.
