Slashdot Mirror
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'. "
Unlike some might pun given the politicians in the area, the data does NOT support lowered IQ in DC as a significant problem.
/. 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.
/. 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.
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
So don't start a
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.
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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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).
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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
====
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.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
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."
/., but nice try.
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
From the article:
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:
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
Experimental setup
Materials:
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.
such places as Washington, DC must be very polluted, with the effects being apparent even in some of the adults.
Gonzo
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.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed