Pollution Lowers Intelligence? 114
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'. "
Re:The problem with pbc's... (Score:1)
Actually, wind farms are the turkeys of alternative energy. They are three times as expensive as coal-fired power stations. In comparison, nuclear fission is 2.5 times more expensive.
There are a lot more cost effective alternatives available than you might imagine, and you might be suprised at how much work has been done in the background over the last two decades.
As a case in point - wave power. The systems that people tried to develop back in the 70's during the OPEC oil crisis were incredibly inefficient, expensive and difficult to maintain.
Some of the new systems are much more compact, and are only 25% - 50% more expensive than coal fired power ( depending on their operational conditions ).
Ditto for solar power. Stop thinking in terms of photo-voltaic systems! They're ok on your roof for domestic power but they aren't practicle for industrial scale power production.
Instead, you use concentrated sunlight to cause the disociation of a compound into seperate reactants. You then seperate and store those reactents and re-combine them on an 'as-needed' basis to produce heat which you use to produce super-heated steam. With enough storage capacity, you have power 24 hours per day. Current test systems of this type are limited to producing steam at 500 degrees celcius, so they have limited efficiencies. Once we can crank it to 800 degrees, you can say goodbye to coal - it won't be able to compete economically.
Want a link? Forget it. It's not on the Internet because the patents are still pending. My point here is simple - it's an issue of concern but don't get suicidally depressed about it. People are working on the problem and we have made a lot more progress to achieving workable solutions than you might think. ;)
Fusion - sure, if it's ever made to work!
The Lawrence factor for magnetic confinement systems back in the 1950's was around 1/100,000. Today, it's at 1/10. When it hits 1 we have self-sustaining fusion. Were getting there, in spite of the obstruction from certain vested interests. It's just taking longer than we thought it would.
How else to save electricity?
Room temperature super-conductors would be great for that, but that an area that I'm not involved with.
You might be strangling my chicken, but you don't want to know what I'm doing to your hampster.
Re:Women (Score:1)
No Wonder! (Score:1)
Re:Stupid Generation (Score:1)
Umm, the article mentions the effects of Chernobyl on places as far away as Scotland. Where exactly can you live that will avoid all the stupidity of other people?
Re:Stupid Generation (Score:1)
Yes polution in general a matter of opinion of the person looking at. See gargle's post #62 -- he explains this issue quite well.
Leaded Gasoline (Score:1)
A solution to pollution! or a vicious cycle? (Score:1)
A vicious never ending cycle? Or the solution to pollution?
This would explain... (Score:1)
-lx
Re:(OT) Moderator's note-Re:The problem with pbc's (Score:1)
The solution is simple. (Score:1)
Rally to the cause!
Re:Green "science" (Score:1)
Re:BULLSHIT!! (Score:1)
Your English doesn't seem to be too good. Maybe you have dyslexia or something.
There's a 7-letter word to describe you kind of people, but I shouldn't say it here for fear of losing karma.
Well, duh (Score:1)
No wonder (Score:1)
Re:By inference... (Score:1)
Re:It's all a balance (Score:1)
Re:Stupid Generation (Score:1)
However, US iodine deficiency has quadrupled [cdc.gov] to 12%. Are people who are "eating healthy" by avoiding salt causing a problem?
For that matter, this New Scientist article [newscientist.com] caught my eye. This research shows that [oup.co.uk]sperm count decrease [bbc.co.uk] may be simply due to iodized salt. What really caught my attention was the mention that iodine deficiency causes smaller brains. We may be smarter than our ancestors 80 years ago.
I knew that iodine is added to salt to prevent goiter [thyroidmanager.org], but had missed the medical knowledge [bookman.com.au] that it also prevents cretinism [tulane.edu]. Iodine is needed for proper brain development. The high incidence [saltinstitute.org] (17-60%) of goiter in affected areas indicates the level of the problem [about.com] (still 43 million people [unicef.org]).
So until the 1920s, perhaps half of the world population was less intelligent than now. Is it a coincidence that as the first iodized generation suffused society we had many fields boom in the 1960s?
Re:(OT) Moderator's note-Re:The problem with pbc's (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:1)
What will the future bring? (Probably a lot more "first posts")
Even worse (Score:1)
Insanity. Ignorance.
Re:SUV owners (Score:1)
A little poem [infamous.net] I performed at the 1995 Earth Day celebration at the University of Maryland College Park:
Happy Earth Day! The oil corporations
Invite you to their ironic celebrations.
Your corporate sponsors are indeed getting green,
The color of cash, from their profits obscene
A sham of environmentalism is such good P.R.
While our ancient growth forests, they cover with tar.
Yell ``Save the Earth!'' while the poison land and sea
A shining example of greed and hypocracy.
Harvest rare trees to build grandfather clocks
But send them to you in a recycled box.
For twenty-four hours, they'll hold Mother Earth dear.
But don't ask what they do the rest of the year.
duh (Score:1)
PCBs in the Fox River (Score:1)
Re:woohoo (Score:1)
-Doug
Re:woohoo (Score:1)
As for pollution I have lived my life in comparativly pristine places (hawaii and new mexico), while it's been known for some time that these toxins are a cause of cancers and other ailments, I dont think that this single study proves conclusivly that lead, and PCBs are actually _THE_ single cause of the lack of intelligence. I say this because in my own experiance I have met many people who lack even the ability to read and write beyond an elementry level (and yes, I'm aware my spelling is atrocious). I think that the intelligence thing is also hugely affected by other aspects of environment, and genetics... but, of course, this does raise some legitimate issues about the very long term effects of pollution.. bye
btw, hamsters are at http://www.greymatter.org [greymatter.org] follow the "Misc" link to the "EVIL Hamsters link..there ya go, have fun ciao
-Doug
Re:Green "science" (Score:1)
Sheesh, don't people know what common words like "clear" and "compelling" mean?
If someone points a gun at you, it's clear that you might get shot and you might be compelled to take immediate action.
I'm not the one who wanted to play semantics with three words "clear and compelling" of my original post. However, I defend my use of those terms. Clear, in this context, means "free from obscurity or ambiguity". Something is compelling if it drives you to act. I think someone pointing a gun at my head is both clear and compelling. "Clear and compelling" does NOT mean beyond all metaphysical doubt.
-Jordan Henderson
That really had me worried... (Score:1)
Then again, this really doesn't surprise me too much; I live near Los Angeles and I think that if you can feel the air crunch between your teeth, the air has stuff in it that can really screw you up.
Yes ! (Score:1)
On the issue of fossil fuels, there is only a 50 to 100 years of reserves left at present levels of consumption.
Who the fsck'ing do we think we are that we, the present generation, should have the right and privilege of consuming the vast reserves in an instant of human history ? What about future generations. I am disgusted with the current outrage that as accompanied the recent rise of fuel costs. Are people really that short sighted that they somehow believe that a buck-a-gallon is birthright ! Our great grand children will look back and think how stupid, myopic and selfish we were.
I believe there should be a 20% to 30% tax on all fossil fuels with that revenue being spent on research and implementation of renewable energy sources (wind, solar, extraterrestial solar, waste-to-energy, geothermal) in addition to conservation measures (insulation, better designs, improveed transmission and storage methods)
Elementary, my dear Watson... (Score:1)
I would assume that all people who wish to live a healthy life (for without health, life is a constant struggle) remove all of the free radicals that propagate the very pollution that we are breathing.
The 'free radicals' that I am referring to are the very ones who follow the mantra of greed, not the commitment to think about the future. Those people are the politicians - the auto makers - OPEC - corporate America, need I say more...
Yes, I do need to say more. I don't own a car. I sacrifice by riding in the rain and snow. I am not lazy, but more often I have felt like a really expensive air purifier. I have to remember that not everyone is lazy and drives 20 feet to get their mail, however there are a great many people whose reliance on the auto has become too much. It's time (and I don't want this to sound cliche) for all of you who feel any iota of responsibility to stand up and demand that governments (city, county, state, and federal) do something to make the quality of life better. Vote for those representatives who endorse recycling and mass transit. Don't vote for amendments that increase money for bigger and better highways.
Here in Colorado our air has been the worst I have ever seen it in my life. Everyone drives and this is the main cause of the 'brown cloud' that used to be the domain of only Denver, but now stretches from as far north as Cheyenne, WY and as far south as Pueblo, CO!
Not to sound like such a dork, because these matters are usually the 'Holy Grail' of worthwhile causes for extreme activists, but greed is the monster behind the problem. Greed is the very center of the problems that Wall Street has been having lately. Think about greed and you. And then think about how greed has changed you. Are you searching for a successful future. If 'yes,' then how do you define success.
I could go on, but it is time for me to bicycle home so I can eat some lunch.
-est a.k.a. thoughtlover
problems in Bangkok too (Score:1)
PCB abuse? (Score:1)
Would they understand it?
Re:The problem with pbc's... (Score:1)
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?
Possibly not but if you might get away with sending a bill for your healthcare to tobacco companies.
Okay, so tobacco companies allegedly lied to consumers which is a big reason why they're so liable. I'm not sure if most major polluting corporations lie, but it seems like a similar type of problem to me at least.
What are the chances that they will ever be held accountable for the negative externalities they're currently placing on society (including more than the immediate region such as the country they reside in) if they're not already?
Re:A solution to pollution! or a vicious cycle? (Score:1)
<conspiracytheory>
The folks who work in factories or live in countries where this is a problem will continue to suffer the negative effects of polution, having a higher rate of birth defects and a lower intelligence than previous generations. The brighter ones will leave to live in an area where they can benefit from the newly found cheap labor and still be safe from said pollution's effects.
</conspiracytheory>
Re:God, enough about Neal Stephenson (Score:1)
Re:Biomagnification (Score:1)
Is it not to get rid of unvanted chemicals?
I dont think that if an animal eats something dangerous a person who then eats that animal would get infected of some illness (or lack of intelligence).
Re:Anti-Business Commie tripe (Score:1)
Yup, debunk it quick. Then we can go back to our regularly scheduled polluting.
====
Re:Anti-Business Commie tripe (Score:1)
====
SUV owners (Score:1)
Then again, you gotta be pretty damn stupid to buy an SUV in the first place...gaz guzzling fat ass pieces of shit...
Re:woohoo (Score:1)
Re:Green "science" (Score:1)
If you closed your average downtown New York highschool for a week to remove aspestos the kids there would have a higher chance of being injured or killed from simply being out on the streets of New York then from the aspestos. Of course this has been done before, but what did ya expect?
Re:Well, remember the Roman empire.. (Score:1)
I'm not suggesting the report is necessarily false, or that lead and PCB's don't have serious negative effects, but the page makes many sweeping statements without presenting the evidence or the evaluative methods used. The child in England with 'blood-lead level high enough for intelligence to be affected could be the result of immediate rather than widespread environmental levels. Similarly, if the Indian village is losing it's intelligent people, or they're moving out en masse, wouldn't the lack of an intellectually stimulating environment for the remainder affect the overall intelligence (however it was measured) more than the fluoride?
I'll happily wait until I read the full report, rather than vague generalities.
They forgot the Second Law of Intelligence (Score:1)
The population is growing.
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHhhhh......... (Score:1)
Re:It's all a balance (Score:1)
nothing new here... (Score:1)
Micronutrient uptake and GM technology (Score:1)
Of course, another reason for micronutrient shortage which was mentioned was soil depletion, and increased uptake cannot help where there are no micronutrients for the taking, but in much of India and the Far East the real problem is that the crops are not delivering the micronutrients that are there in the soil.
I am not uniformly pro-GM, in fact I believe that certain applications of the technology do more harm than good (suicide genes and herbicide resistance genes) but it must be said that it does have great merits as well.
Re:Micronutrient uptake and GM technology (Score:1)
> technology do more harm than good (suicide
> genes and herbicide resistance genes)
I meant terminator rather than suicide genes. That is really irritating.
Wait (Score:1)
They say there is much pollution heree. What pollution?
No one here feels no pollution, No one here feels no pollution, No one here feels no pollution, No one here feels no pollution
doesn't matter (Score:1)
Now you could be saying that the population of the country as a whole is getting older, or having children at an older age, and that's what's causing the increase in Down's Syndrome. But the only way to get those pre-conditions to jive with their findings is to concentrate all the older women in higher numbers in the affected areas or to compare Down's Syndrom rates over time only in the affected areas. Both seem pretty unlikely.
FYI: Solar Panels (Score:1)
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.
Hmm...another example of patents gone bad.
--------------------
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." -- Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo
Moderate up the message I'm replying to... (Score:1)
Also, parents have given the job of raising their kids to the educational system which does a horrible job (IMHO). I'm not talking about the teachers necessarily, but those at the top who are in control playing politics instead of doing what's best for the children. For example, phonics. X number of years ago, the government tried a new method of teaching children to read. Nothing wrong with that. But it failed. It failed misserably. Still not time to call in the lynch yet. We all make mistakes and should learn from them. Did the gov.? No. They refused to swallow their pride and admit that phonics worked better and that they were wrong. (are phonics still not being taught? not sure) As a result, we have graduates that can't read their diploma. It's shamefull. Ok, NOW we can call in the lynch mob. This is just one example that I'm aware of and I'm sure there're many others. However, the parents should still hold the responsibility for this. Parents let the government raise their kids and we can see the results. Get involved parents.
Disclaimer: I speak very generally here. There are many good parents out there and good teachers also, and some very bright young men and women come out of the public school system. I have great parents and had some great teachers.
/*--Why can't I find the QNX OS on any warez sites?
* (above comment useless as of 4-26-2000)
*/
Lemmings (Score:1)
I want a nifty umberella!
Re:Stupid Generation (Score:1)
But, is salt the only source of iodine that we get? Do they put it anything else, or is there a natural source that we eat/drink on a regular basis?
I find it amusing that the milk industry tells us to drink milk for the calcium but the forget to tell us that they need to put cod liver oil because calcium remains inactive unless it interacts with vitamin D.
first PCB victim (Score:1)
It's just cruel using freakish syntax like this when I'm wondering if my brain's been PCBed all to hell...
Re:It's all a balance (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:It's all a balance (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
It's all a balance (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
That's impossible (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Green "science" (Score:2)
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" (Score:2)
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... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
I'd encourage anyone who's interested to read a book like Bananas, Beaches and Bases [fatbrain.com] (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 (Score:2)
IMDB bio note [imdb.com]
Peer review? Biology? (Score:2)
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........!!!! (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Intelligence actually rising (Score:2)
See this American Scientist article: Rising Scores on Intelligence Tests [sigmaxi.org]
Cutting through the bullshit (Score:2)
I have a solution to the world's pollution problem (Score:2)
well, hold on, it's on the tip of my tongue...
I JUST FORGOT IT! DAMN YOU PCB'S!!!!!
Well, remember the Roman empire.. (Score:2)
Stupid Generation (Score:2)
How do we break out?
Walter M. Miller Jr. sezs you need a clue-stick (Score:2)
Unless you were being sarcastic
Bad Science Sunday on Slashdot (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Phew... (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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... (Score:3)
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
Biomagnification (Score:3)
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" (Score:3)
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" (Score:3)
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
Lead is everywhere (Score:3)
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... (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
Re:Green "science" (Score:3)
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... (Score:3)
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 (Score:3)
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
Green "science" (Score:4)
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
Duct tape is the answer!! (Score:4)
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.
By inference... (Score:4)
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... (Score:4)
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 [homepower.com], a great online solar resource.
Re:Green "science" (Score:5)
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.
====