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

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.