Pollution Lowers Intelligence?

ChrisUK writes "A new article posted on the BBC's Sci/Tech news site states that pollution in the form of PCB's is lowering intelligence. Interesting reading; a good background for which would be available from Neal Stephenson's book 'Zodiac'. "

Comments

Re:It's all a balance

[Anonymous Coward]

So doesn't it make you think a tiny weeny bit, that on the last few big Eco-conferences, they couldn't even agree to freeze emissions to current levels???

Get a clue man!
Recycling? Sure. We had a big neighborhood lobbying process before they even put one recycling container (the only one in a 20 min driving radius, metropolitan area that is) in front of a big grocery store. And the latest word is, that the "recycling-company" dumps the recycling materials into regular trash anyway. Way to go.
Car emissions? So then who buys Europe's 3-liter/100km cars? Last time I checked business week, every carmaker and their mother is stepping up SUV and Pickup-production. Hhhhmmm, why could that be? Nooh, they're America's favorite cars? Really??? Oh, and I nearly forgot that stunning number I read recently, that there are nearly as many cars in the US as people? That really cuts down on emissions...
Black smoke? Nice. Cuz' it isn't black anymore, it means it's less harmful?

Methinks, you're under some serious brainwashing influence by the appropriate industries. Kinda like Phillip Morris making comercials for sponsoring health centers and making people believe they're more important than their bottom line.

Anyway, not that I'm an eco-freak or anything. But to believe things are getting better is just totally unreal. Yes, there is more awareness, but just as much, as the PR depts. (including Al Gore's) need to make a sufficient amount of people believe that they care.

thank you,
Roland

PS: BTW, you count having non-safe sex as pollution? Interesting... :)

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[sjames]

Oil from the Middle East is MUCH more expensive than most people imagine. In order to get a true picture, add the price for the oil itself, the cost of military and diplomatic efforts to keep the region stable, and the cost of having standby troops and equipment for deployment in the Middle East. That area would be a lot more stable if the nations there didn't have all that military hardware they bought with oil money.

One reason that solar tends to be too expensive now is the small demand. If the demand went up (and with it, production volume), the economy of scale would bring prices down.

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[jd]

As I've said before, British Nuclear Fuels was found faking results to prove nuclear power a better investment than wind, wave or solar power. The British Government wanted to believe this so badly that they bought it.

If "alternative" energy is to succeed, IMHO, it has to succeed without the "aid" of industry or Government, and it has to succeed so spectacularly that all the back-handers in the world won't make a difference. In short, you'd have to make the entire existing power infrastructure irrelevent. Utterly, and overnight.

IMHO, that's not going to happen for a while. Sure, once the seas rise to the point of devastating coastal regions, politicians will act all comforting and no doubt tell you that nobody could have forseen it. Just as certainly, 90% of the world's population will believe them, too.

(Sure, you have the Thames Flood Barrier, but they put holes in that, so the water wouldn't build up and flood London -that- way. Which would be a lot stinkier than if the sea did. Once the sea level rises high enough, the back pressure will be enough to reverse the Thames and devastate London anyway. But, by then, Parliament will have moved to the Cotswalds, so why should they care?)

In practical terms, most of the remedies (eg: great space-borne lasers, giant reflecting dishes, etc) would be so destructive to the environment that the entire alternative energy movement would be destroyed overnight if any of these were to be used.

What does that leave us? Giant wind-farms? Most developers still think of the old windmill construction, rather than the omni-directional generators. That means you're limited in what directions they work in, and how fast the wind can go. So, those are out.

Water power - the Salter Duck was the last best hope there, and it's been sunk by BNFL. Sure, you could use it on a river, to power a house or two, but it'll never be used nationally by anyone, now. Hydro-electric dams destroy the environment in other ways, and are rapidly loosing any favour they had.

Geothermal power - might work, for a while. But they're too vulnerable to malicious attack. Block a geothermal vent, and you'll know about it.

Gravitational energy - that's a maybe. For the VERY distant future. The moon is moving away from Earth, at so many cm per year. If we want an inhabitable planet, in the year "sometime", we need to soak off some of it's energy. The easiest way to do that is to use it's own gravity. The tidal forces it exert slow the moon down, so it should be possible to exploit those to generate power AND place the moon in a more stable orbit. (Just don't soak off TOO much!)

Fusion - sure, if it's ever made to work! The Governments are keen to under-fund it (to keep conventional nuclear power unchallanged, as well as to retain a source of weapons-grade material) and in it's present state is unlikely to produce any results before the Universe suffers heat-death.

Lastly, there's always the possibility of more efficient fuel usage. Street lights are omni-directional. Unless there really ARE UFO's trying to land in Washington DC, I really don't see the point. A cheap reflector would halve the directions, and therefore double the brightness where it's useful. In turn, that means you need only push through half the power to generate the light, saving power. Your bulbs also last longer, saving power on production and transport.

How else to save electricity? Well, lossage from power lines, due to inefficient practices and poor maintenance, is probably high enough that simply ripping the whole network out and replacing it with something that works would probably pay for itself within a few months and reduce power requirements nationally by a significant amount.

Cars are a great one, too. I've heard people -BOAST- about milages as great as 6 miles to the gallon. *COUGH* Most volkswagons would probably handle all their space needs, at 45 miles to the gallon. Hybrid electric/gas cars exist which can manage 65. There are even specialty cars which can handle 10,000 miles to the gallon!

(Before anyone asks "how fast can those go?" or some other dumb question, think for a moment. Say you're an OAP or a student on a tight budget, and most of your travel is (a) local, and (b) in rush hour. You don't CARE how fast you can go! You want to get there, get back, and have enough money to pay the bills afterwards! If you could buy disposable, high-milage cars that never needed refuelling, that would be the answer to many a grandparent's or half-starved student's prayer.)

Then there's "public transport". If it's quicker to walk than take the bus, I'm sorry but most people are going to tell the bus companies where they can insert those busses. And it's doubtful it'll be pretty, either. Rapid, efficient public transport would reduce pollution, reduce road wear, reduce fuel usage, AND reduce traffic jams.

Re:Stupid Generation

[discHead]

Reworking free-trade agreements so that they don't benefit companies that pollute would be a good start.

Re:It's all a balance

[AArthur]

Population is actually just starting to go down in most first world countries today. The baby boomers generation are getting older and slowly dieing -- and there kids are not having lots of kids -- and many of them are praticing safe sex pratices -- especially with the worries of STDs.

Many people try to paint a dark picture of pollution today -- it's really not as bad as many people picture it. Today cars uses much less gas (less air pollution, less resource spent) then 30 years ago (the average car gets like 25 mpg, 30 years ago around 5 gallons), black smoke from factories doesn't exist in the US anymore, more garbage is being recycled and reused (although one could argue that the increased use of plastics is acting against it -- much plastic is burned and releases dioxin and only about 40% of plastic recycled ever gets recycled -- and it only happens once), cities have stricter pollution laws -- ie. litering has high fines, as does burning of certian "polluting" materials, etc.

Obviously there is a way to go, but in first world countries polution is much less of a problem then 20 or 30 years ago. It's just that we know more and fear more of polution today, then what we did yesterday.

This shit is a real pain in the ass to get rid of.

[The Dodger]

As the US Military recently discovered.

PCBs really are toxic waste - they can't be broken up easily using chemical methods and because they are so incredibly toxic, they're just as bad as radioactive waste to dispose of. Worse, in fact - at least radioactive waste has a half-life and is less bio-accumulative than PCBs...

D.

It's all a balance

[mind21_98]

Although this news is not the best in the world, I think there's a silver lining.

This is all a balance. In about 20 years the amount of pollution will diminish as fewer and fewer inhabit the Earth, and we'll eventually be "green" people. It's all a part of evolution. After the population diminishes to the point where the Earth can hold us all, people will realize what they did and will take steps never to let it happen again.

So as you can see, there's nothing to worry about.

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[Mignon]

Talking about looking at the big picture, there's a great book, called Why Things Bite Back, by Edward Tenner. It's about how technology changes physical problems for people from one type to another. For example, as we went from an industrial/agrarian economy to an information economy, we went from injuries such as fingers being lopped off by farm equipment and black lung, we now have carpal tunnel syndrome, to give an oversimplified example.

That's impossible

[CAIMLAS]

I live in South Dakota. You're telling me that the lack of intelligence here could be caused by pollutants? This is one of the lowest-emmision states in the US.

Everywhere else I've gone in the nation has at least had some ensembles of intelligent commerce and life in general. Not here. Then again, these _are_ hicks we're talking about.

-------
CAIMLAS

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[Mr. Slippery]

Any company that tries to sell solar competitively on the market today is going to fall flat on its rear.

Depends on the application. Solar is the best choice if you don't have good access to the grid - it's very expensive to get copper strung to a new location.

It's also great for portable devices. I've noticed that the alphanumeric road construction signs they use around here (the portable types that tell you "Rt 198 will be closed...April 23 2-6 am") have gone solar - I think they used to have big ol' diesel generators.

Re:FYI: Solar Panels

[Mr. Slippery]

My teacher brought forth the point that there is already super-efficent, super cheap, solar panels out there...the only problem is that Pacific Gas & Electric bought the patent to them and rufuses to release the technology to the public.

Sounds like a mutation of the classic "100 mpg carborator" urban legend.

Re:Green "science"

[Mr. Slippery]

...folks who complain that GM foods haven't been proven safe but apparently don't realize that a) it's impossible to prove food safe; b) nobody's even tried for most foods, like, say, oranges; c)genes aren't static, anyway.

a and b): a few thousand years of human experience with these foodstuffs isn't sufficient evidence? c) The total genome of a species is close enough to static for most practical purposes; while existing genes can be shuffled all around, new genes arise only through mutation - or, now, through GM.

Now, if you want to test GM foods on your body, fine. I'd prefer to wait a while, at least until there's actual engineering rather then "shoot these genes into the cell and see what happens". So please label them. More importantly, I don't want their new genes getting into the unmodified strains, so please keep your GM crops and their pollen well-contained.

Re:Green "science"

[Mr. Slippery]

The total disappearance of the ozone layer would count as "clear and compelling" evidence. The problem with this is that it would be too late to do anything by then.

The alternative to acting on clear and compelling evidence is acting on ambiguous and unconvincing evidence. I suppose you favor acting on the evidence of any crackpot that comes along?

When presented with a potential threat whose avoidance requires quick action, you may have to act without having access to all the facts. If someone points a gun at you, you can't wait until there's clear and compelling evidence that it's a functional and loaded firearm. If you have the least lick of sense, you take cover immediately, even if it's inconvenient and you might scrape your knee and tear your brand new trousers, because even a small chance of having your brains blown out trumps a 100% chance of a bloody knee and torn pants.

And no, that doesn't mean that you hit the dirt when J. Random Crackpot comes along sceaming that invisible alien Elvis clones are pointing death rays at us all.

Re:Elementary, my dear Watson...

[Mr. Slippery]

Free radicals, for those of you who haven't any knowledge of nutritional/environmental terms, are components that interfere or completely disrupt cellular activity, e.g., carbon monoxide, lead, PCBs, radioactivity and other carcinogens.

No. Radicals are (chemists, please correct me here as necessary, my last chem class was 15 years ago) highly reactive molecules - or maybe more accurately "molecule parts", since they're not stable by themselves - that are strongly bouind together and act as oxidizing agents. Free radicals are radicals not bound in a molecule; they wander around breaking molecular bonds, not a good thing for the health of a cell. Carbon monoxide might qualify as a free radical, I'm not sure.

Free radicals are produced as a side-effect of normal biological processes; they can also be produced by radiation breaking molcular bonds. Anti-oxidants act to neutralize free radicals.

Lead is a heavy metal. It's a toxin, but not a free radical.

Radioactivity can create free radicals, but is not a free radical.

PCBs are toxic molecules, but are not free radicals.

I strongly agree that these are all bad things to have floating around the environment; but we need to know the enemy.

More than just PCBs

[toh]

I guess this was sort of a meta-story, but it barely deals with PCBs past the headline (do the /. story posters bother to read these links?). The more substantive issues it mentions seem to be lead (well-documented, though no one seems to be doing anything about it) and the inability of agribusiness "Green Revolution" crops to actually nourish anyone. Is this really any surprise? You burn away all the native foods to establish an export processing zone for some monoculture cash crop, more-or-less enslave the local population to produce it (the name "Green Revolution" is more than a little Orwellian), and then note that they have nothing nutritious to eat. One might argue that for many employer multinationals this is an unexpected bonus, since a stupider population is less likely to rise up against you. Naming PCBs as the culprit just gives the false sense that there's one manageable problem we've created, with one possible solution out there waiting somewhere. There isn't.

I'd encourage anyone who's interested to read a book like Bananas, Beaches and Bases (I especially like "Carmen Miranda on my Mind") to see where all this came from. The BBC article gives you an inkling where it's going.

Re:SUV owners

[Stonehand]

I'm sure Leonardo "EarthDayBoy" diCaprio, owner of two SUVs, appreciates your disapproval.

IMDB bio note

Peer review? Biology?

[Stonehand]

So what we have is a social scientist who happens to be a member of, judging by name, an environmentalist group with an agenda, posturing about effects on intelligence?

In constrast, say, to a neurobiologist or a biochemist who does NOT have a direct interest in the results of his research, who submits to strict peer review?

THIS JUST IN........!!!!

[BMIComp]

Not only does pollution lower your intelligence, but it has been recently discovered the cell phones and power lines cause cancer!

Seriously, this is one of the claims, that until there is in-depth research, and proof, that I wouldn't worry too much about. I mean, yes, it's possible, even probable that this is true, yet the extent of this has yet to be proven. Some people are just not intelligent, and there are other factors to consider first.

If this is true, I'm guessing all the "first post"ers are living in Gary, Indiana.

Re:Intelligence actually rising

[briancarnell]

Waiting to see the obvious: "Pollution raises IQ" study!

Intelligence actually rising

[NearlyHeadless]

While some of the effects in the article are real, measured intelligence has been sharply rising, so the alarmist tone is unwarranted.

See this American Scientist article: Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests

Cutting through the bullshit

[skrew]

Farming only 6% of the continental U.S. with hemp could produce enough energy to provide for America's energy needs and end dependence on fossil fuels. Hemp is the number one biomass producer on earth (10 tons in approximately 90-120 days). http://www.hemp.com/101/QuickFacts.asp

I have a solution to the world's pollution problem

[Ronin X]

I have a solution to the world's pollution problem!!! I, uh,
well, hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue...
I JUST FORGOT IT! DAMN YOU PCB'S!!!!!

Well, remember the Roman empire..

[medicthree]

One serious hypothesis about the reason for the fall of the Roman Empire is that they had lead in their drinking water and this caused lowered intelligence. If there really is a link between PCBs and lowered intelligence, this is something to take seriously.

Stupid Generation

[roman_mir]

Well, isn't it what we expect to happen? It's a vicious cycle, you pollute and get more and more stupid, you pollute some more and get even more stupid, then you pollute more... etc.
How do we break out?

Walter M. Miller Jr. sezs you need a clue-stick

[legLess]

Ever read A Canticle for Leibowitz? Classic SF from 1956; one of the most infulential and respected books in the genre. Humanity nukes itself, spends 2k years rebuilding from the ashes, then does it again.

Unless you were being sarcastic ;)

Bad Science Sunday on Slashdot

[blicero]

I hate to complain, but this is the second article based on bad science to appear on /. today. The other being "IBM And Mind Input Devices."

A social scientist from the Institute of Education, declares that pollution lowers your intelligence, and nary a biologist, physician, epidemiologist, chemist, biochemist or anybody else with a degree in a hard science is quoted.

A generally ridiculed Professor Emeritus at Princeton who lost his marbles in 1976 declares that he can make an input device based on the principles of ESP.

I hate to sound like an intellectual bigot, but these articles really belong on some New Age Granola Cruncher web site, not one billing itself as "News For Nerds".

Pollution Does NOT loower itelligince.

[istartedi]

I sit in traffik ever day behind a deezel bus for 6 hours so I can work for 20 hours and cum home tired. It's OK becuzzz i mak lotza mon... uh... I forgot what I was going to say. Anyway... I like pollution just fine, and even though I used to be a roads skollar and am now just... I forgot what I do...grr... I hate when that happens. Anyway, I don't think palution has had any effect on my itlligenc.

you sure?

[Emugamer]

look at asia , one of the most poluted areas of the world and then look at suburbia USA.... yeah yeah whatever you say might cause it, I think its called cable TV

Phew...

[OmicronTheta]

"He (Dr. Chris Williams) undertook a global review of science-based research into the impact of environmental factors on intelligence. "

Certainly good to know that all of these results are science-based -- I'm certainly glad he didn't use... um... whatever the other kind of research is!

Beware of reversing cause and effect

[fedos]

What the studies actually show is a correlation between high pollution levels and lower intelligence. As with the correlation between violence on television and violent kids, we shouldn't be quick to jump to certain conclusions.

Just because there is a link between TV violence and crimes committed by kids does not mean that violent TV shows make kids violent: it could be that violent kids are more likely to watch violent TV.

Also, just because there is a link between pollution and low intelligence doesn't mean that pollution is lowering intelligence. It might just be that the smarter people are leaving for cleaner areas

Not that I'm advocating polluting the enivronment.

Women

[Soldier(R)]

Please don't flame me for this, as I am just trying to discuss this reasonably.

Along the lines of this article, I've long been suspicious that women who wear makeup with toxic traces and alchohol on a daily bases causes negative effects in the long term.

Just think about perfume. The perfume gains its pungency because the scents are caried as the alchohol evaporates. Imagine inhaling that all day long.

Has any research been done on this?


Soldier(R)

Re:By inference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike some might pun given the politicians in the area, the data does NOT support lowered IQ in DC as a significant problem.

Even if it was, you would be better solving problems in social inequalities, poor efforts from the local government, and boosting the local economy to get rid of racial disparities. You should know that DC is one of the most studied areas because of the cross-section of high quality health care and poor health outcomes. For example, the pediatric death rate is the highest in the nation, despite having one of the top pediatrician to child ratios in the country (DC and Maryland are the top 2 I believe). Adult cancer rates *are* rampant and rank in the tops in the nation, despite having numerous hospitals and excellently trained physicians in the area; unfortunately, given DC's local government, cash funding that *is* available frequently is lost due to their ineptness (they lost well over $200 million 2 years ago because no one filed the paperwork necessary to get funds earmarked specificly for the DC area).

And as a norm in this country, blacks and hispanics receive, relative to whites, inadequate health care. There are a *lot* of compounding reasons, including mistrust of the medical profession, as well as the previously mentioned social inequalities. This is all further compounded by the immigrant and alien population in the area, which, because of their lifestyle, lack of information and availability of health care, frequently has problems being "pockets" of disease outbreaks, reservoirs for diseases, and bring in disease--this threatens themselves and the local populations, rich and poor both. Unfortunately, people look to this as a reason for hating immigrants or aliens, but it's really a failure of social policy and funding....you can't stop disease spread if you don't fund centers for it, threaten people with deportation, or there is mistrust.

The article on /. is focused on environmental issues, but it conveniently forgets that, if the problem IS cleaned up, the environmental impact is reduced in successive generations. Certainly, this is not something new. Environment and occupational health professors that I've heard lecture mentioned that if you were born prior to 1976 in the U.S., you probably have have had some IQ lowering due to lead exposure, however, slight, as a child. You don't pass that on to your children, however, except in the form of a "dumbing down" effect.

So don't start a /. hysteria on "oh my god, we're all getting dumber." It is a problem, it's been a KNOWN problem, it may be getting worse, but there are a LOT of competing issues out there that need like addressment.

Biomagnification

[physguy]

What about animals being contaminated? Have studies been done to see the affects on them? This is very important because many people eat high-up on the food chain thus ingesting all of the pollutants the animal absorbed.

I've only heard about biomagnification in relation to pesticides and animals. It's somewhat counterintuitive: there are pesticides on vegetables; if you eat more vegetables you'll get less pesticides in your diet. If animals are picking up these pollutants it could be hazardous to you even if you don't live in a highly-polluted area. This shows how one person's decision hundreds of miles from you can affect you greatly.

Re:Green "science"

[Stonehand]

Folks don't, however, pre-emptively whack off limbs to stave off an unlikely case of gangrene in the case of minor cuts. Would you accept an unmarked, untested pill from a stranger in exchange for a year of auto insurance?

There's a lot of irrationality out there, such as that from folks who complain that GM foods haven't been proven safe but apparently don't realize that a) it's impossible to prove food safe; b) nobody's even tried for most foods, like, say, oranges; c) genes aren't static, anyway.

Likewise, those who feel that "nature" == "healthful" make me guffaw, considering that deadly nightshade, foxglove, sea-snake venom, cyanide compounds, and botulin are all perfectly natural. But I wouldn't go eating lots of foxglove if I were you...

Regardless of whether irrationality is conventional "wisdom", however, we cannot let this irrationality dominate our decision-making processes. To "do something" simply because masses demand that, without studying what that "something" is and what its ramifications are, and without fully understanding the situation, would be dangerous and ill-advised.

Is there, say, a risk of global warming? Perhaps. Some data suggests there is, although there is contention. That this may be worth studying does NOT mean that it would be advisable to suddenly switch to other fuel sources without examining the full effects, however. A switch to an electric car may *seem* good, but one then has to consider what byproducts the production and usage of the electricity results in... and that requires data.

Thus, we shouldn't rush to judgement.

Re:Green "science"

[JordanH]

• Unfortunately what is "clear and compelling" is entirely viewer dependent, and in an issue as heavily politicized as this, biases come heavily into play.

So, because there it is heavily politicized and there are biases, we can't act reasonably? I reject this.

Does this mean we have to act unreasonably? To overreact in ways that cause more damage than they address (I gave two examples, Asbestos cleanups and MTBE).

• Another problem with "clear and compelling": The total disappearance of the ozone layer would count as "clear and compelling" evidence. The problem with this is that it would be too late to do anything by then.

The alternative to acting on clear and compelling evidence is acting on ambiguous and unconvincing evidence. I suppose you favor acting on the evidence of any crackpot that comes along?

Actually, the total disappearance of the ozone layer would be clear evidence of something, I suppose, but without other causal evidence it wouldn't be proof that industrial humanity had anything to do with it whatsoever. I'm glad you gave this as an example, actually. When the world was confronted with clear and compelling evidence of damage of CFCs on the ozone, Industrial Societies acted dramatically.

Clear and compelling evidence was presented and people acted reasonably.

• We don't just need "clear and compelling" evidence. People buy insurance against unlikely but catastrophic events. If there is even a reasonable risk of an environmental catastrophe, we need to act appropriately to insure ourselves against this.

I only buy insurance when it's clear and compelling that there is a risk that it covers. I suppose you buy insurance against alien abduction (you can!) and other unlikely events?

Besides, there is also a risk in henny-penny anti-industrialization. What if we are unable to fend off a killer meteor in a few hundred years because we de-industrialized as "insurance" against the possibility of environmental catastrophe?

I agree we need to act "appropriately". To my mind, this involves collecting evidence and establishing cause and effect. That's what I was addressing in my post where you found it so necessary to mince the words "clear and compelling". Apparently, the author of the article felt that collecting evidence and establishing cause and effect was too great a burden.

-Jordan Henderson

Lead is everywhere

[mclearn]

I mean, come on. Lead is used in "just about everything". We are doomed to be stupid...

Remember the all out ban on venetian blinds containing lead? (Or was that just here in Canada?) They were afraid that children were going to chew on the blinds and ingest the lead. Which of course would build up in their brains and cause problems...

Uh, huh. Two things: They forgot to mention the fact that it would take someone years to chew enough lead out of these things (they'd grind their teeth down to nothing long before), and the second is that now we've all thrown our perfectly good, almost safe lead blinds out. In a pile with a million others. To concentrate all the lead together.

I don't know about you, but I think I here my blind calling me...

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[hmn_being]

This reminds me of a story told to me by some of my AE friends. An aerospace company was bought out by a holding company that had mainly owned grocery stores and warehouses before this acquisition. After the purchase of the company, they sent in their accountants to do an audit based on their standard criteria: dollars in profit per square footage of space allocated to each department. They returned with the recomendations of getting rid of the metallurgy and fluid dynamics divisions. The holding company was then surprised when the aerospace company financially imploded.

You can't just look at numbers on paper and pick the bigger (or smaller) one. You need to look at all the particulars of where the numbers came from.
Petroleum fuels are used because they are _denser_ sources of energy than solar or wind. Solar and wind may be cheaper per unit depending on how you run the numbers. But you get a larger _total_ amount of energy using Petroleum

That's interesting handing a bill for health problems to the oil companies. Can I send computer monitor companies a bill for all the childrens' eyeglasses in the developed world?

Pretty much content free story

[briancarnell]

A lot of words that said very little. On the Downs syndrome study, for example, I wonder how they controlled for the increasing age at which women tend to have children in Europe. Of course the BBC apparently doesn't consider passing along that sort of information to be relevant.

Re:Green "science"

[gargle]

We may differing over what "clear and compelling" means. In my mind, this means establishing beyond doubt that an environmental catastrophe will in fact occur. I think this is taking it too far - when the evidence is that clear and compelling, it seems likely that great damage will have already been done. You may have a weaker definition of clear and compelling, so we may in fact agree.

I only buy insurance when it's clear and compelling that there is a risk that it covers. . I suppose you buy insurance against alien abduction (you can!) and other unlikely events?

When you buy insurance, you insure yourself against what are statistically unlikely events. e.g. an auto accident, a fire, etc. You expected gain is negative -- otherwise insurance companies wouldn't be making any money. However, your expected utility is positive -- a catastrophic accident will hurt you much more than than paying a small amount every month.

This is the approach I think we should be taking with regard to possible environmental catastrophes. If a substantial risk exists, it will be foolish not to take action now to insure ourselves. Of course, the amount of action to take has to be carefully considered.

====

Re:The problem with pbc's...

[JudgePagLIVR]

Point well taken. Conventional energy sources aren't "conventional" by accident. People use them because they work, and they work darn well.

But in all fairness, please note that I did *not* advocate the use of AE, but rather the research of AE. You say that AE is unusable in it's current form, and I heartily agree: you're right! Any company that tries to sell solar competitively on the market today is going to fall flat on its rear.

At the same time, we can see that there are changes that need to be made within the market. We can also see that solar energy provides the sort of properties that we would want, only on a dismally small scale. That doesn't mean that solar energy can't be used, only that it can't be used today.

Furthermore, while you get more energy out of petroleum, you only get that energy *if* you have a dependable source of petroleum. Now, on one hand, we are not going to run out of oil any time soon. I'll even go so far as to say that we will "never" run out of oil - that is, our oil resources are plentiful enough that the thought of us still using oil by the time we would run out is silly.

On the other hand, that does not mean that we have a dependable source of petroleum. A large part of the world's oil reserves lie in the mideast, an area that has been a religio-political hotbed for thousands of years. If a country is dependant on that oil, then sooner or later that country will become politically involved in the area. And that means that some day, the price of that oil will include the blood of your sons. This is not sad, it's simply unacceptable.

Why not take the opportunity now to research technologies that will remove that dependancy? No violent changes needed, we don't have to tear down the power companies... just try to learn how to do things a little differently. The research that helps us build better solar panels will also help us make faster pentiums. The innovations that create more effective wind generators will also let us sell cheaper hair driers.

Everyone wins.

This study is pathetic

[Anonymous Elf]

Little data is given. Most of the examples are old. Where are the controlled studies? And why does every poster only seem to read the headline and then run with it? A more apt title "Some pollutants at high concentrations may impair intelligence."

Remember: "The dose makes the poison."

This is not science, pure environmental FUD easily food to kids raised in public schools on junk science.

Stick to Linux /., but nice try.

Green "science"

[JordanH]

From the article:

• "Some of the most difficult environmental challenges are not being adequately addressed simply because of the difficulties of collecting the necessary evidence and establishing cause and effect."

Uhhh, how do we know they are the "most difficult environmental challenges" or whether they are being "adequately addressed" if we haven't collected evidence and established cause and effect?

I'm not against doing sensible things to improve the environment, but the heavily politicized environment we have today makes reasoned action almost impossible.

Some examples:

• As a knee-jerk reaction, we remove Asbestos from building insulation at a cost of Hundreds of Billions of dollars and statistically cause many cancer deaths by releasing the Asbestos into the environment during removal. How many wetlands could have been saved with this money?
• We introduce MTBE into Gasoline to improve air quality a very very small amount and pollute our waters.

We must not take steps to fix environmental problems before there is clear and compelling scientific evidence. Any other course would be the recommendation of someone with severe adolescent lead poisoning.

-Jordan Henderson

Re:Green "science"

[gargle]

We must not take steps to fix environmental problems before there is clear and compelling scientific evidence

Unfortunately what is "clear and compelling" is entirely viewer dependent, and in an issue as heavily politicized as this, biases come heavily into play.

Another problem with "clear and compelling": The total disappearance of the ozone layer would count as "clear and compelling" evidence. The problem with this is that it would be too late to do anything by then.

We don't just need "clear and compelling" evidence. People buy insurance against unlikely but catastrophic events. If there is even a reasonable risk of an environmental catastrophe, we need to act appropriately to insure ourselves against this.

====

Duct tape is the answer!!

[mclearn]

Experimental setup

Materials:

• Duct tape
• One (or more) pollution-spewing politicians

Methods:
Record levels of pollution using pollutiometer (TM).
Remove a piece of duct tape 1.2 meters in length from the roll. Place duct tape over mouth of politician. Ensure that politician is kept still during application or pollution may continue to ooze from sides of mouth.
Record pollution level again. If levels are still toxic, then repeat application of duct tape. The reduction of pollution varies linearly to number of layers applied.
Release politician back into the wild. Ensure tags from Echelon corp. allow easy tracking. Subject will be monitored and pollution levels analyzed every 48 hours.

Discussion of findings:
Currently under investigation. Results will be published in BBC Science News when available. Secondary source will be tabloids.

By inference...

[meckardt]

such places as Washington, DC must be very polluted, with the effects being apparent even in some of the adults.

Gonzo

The problem with pbc's...

[JudgePagLIVR]

is that, much like asbestos, they are harmless until disturbed. My college runs alot of it's electrical transformers with pcb coolant - it works really well, and when they finally have to remove it, the only thing they will be able to do is knock a hole in the basement wall and carry the entire machine out.

But the article raises a good point: conventional methods of power generation (for example) are only "cheaper" because the bulk of their expense comes in the form of incidental medical expenses incurred by the community. The power company can light up your lightbulbs cheaply, but if they had to pay all of the cancer and lung health expenses caused by the smoke they pour into the air, even mr. Gates himself wouldn't be able to afford the electricity.

This boils down to an adult version of pushing your vegetables around your plate because you don't want to eat them. In the end, the solution is clear: invest in the research and development of solar and wind based technologies. These power sources are cleaner than fossil fuel tech, and most of their cost is in the form of people: solar and wind tech employs more people (at all skill levels) than any fossil fuel tech. If you count the incidental health costs, solar is cheaper than coal, and even without the health costs, solar is competitive in many areas.

In the end, the headline reads correctly in either direction: pollution causes stupidity, and stupidity causes pollution.

For more info, check out www.homepower.com, a great online solar resource.