Early 'Forever Chemicals' Exposure Could Impact Economic Success in Adulthood, Study Says (theguardian.com) 19
Early life exposure to toxic PFAS "forever chemicals" could impact economic success in adulthood, new first-of-its-kind research [PDF] suggests. From a report: The Iowa State University and US Census Bureau working paper compared the earnings, college graduation rates, and birth weights of two groups of children -- those raised around military installations that had firefighting training areas, and those who lived near bases with no fire training site.
The military began using PFAS-laden firefighting foam in the early 1970s, which frequently contaminated the drinking water supplies in and around bases. Those who lived in regions with firefighting training areas earned about 1.7% on average less later in life, and showed a graduation rate about 1% lower. Those born between 1981-1988 earned about $1bn less in today's earnings, or about $1,000 a person on average, compared to those who did not live near the firefighting training sites.
The data also shows lower birth weights among the population -- a factor linked to lower economic success later in life. The findings "highlight the importance of careful scrutiny of novel chemicals," said Irene Jacz, a study co-author and Iowa State economist. "We think that there's a causal effect from PFAS here but it's really hard to say, 'Oh it's all brain chemistry, or health effects' so there's a need for more research" Jacz said. The paper is not yet peer-reviewed, but will soon go through the process.
The military began using PFAS-laden firefighting foam in the early 1970s, which frequently contaminated the drinking water supplies in and around bases. Those who lived in regions with firefighting training areas earned about 1.7% on average less later in life, and showed a graduation rate about 1% lower. Those born between 1981-1988 earned about $1bn less in today's earnings, or about $1,000 a person on average, compared to those who did not live near the firefighting training sites.
The data also shows lower birth weights among the population -- a factor linked to lower economic success later in life. The findings "highlight the importance of careful scrutiny of novel chemicals," said Irene Jacz, a study co-author and Iowa State economist. "We think that there's a causal effect from PFAS here but it's really hard to say, 'Oh it's all brain chemistry, or health effects' so there's a need for more research" Jacz said. The paper is not yet peer-reviewed, but will soon go through the process.
Poisons Not Good for You (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
can we just assume that everyone's brain is fried now, and start working together to try to fix this whole brain-frying, economic-failure milieu?
There's no money to be made in that, and "working together" has been relabeled as "socialism" or "communism".
Rounding Math for Clicks and Profit. (Score:5, Insightful)
$1000 less per person in “adulthood” (as in damn near lifetime) earnings, should amount to essentially a rounding error.
And those employed by the US Military (those around military firefighting installations) may receive good benefits, but on average they actually earn a lot less than 1.7% by comparison. Unlike Congress, there’s no one earning a 9-figure net worth while serving. And that’s before we start counting the civilian billionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
$1000 less per person in “adulthood” (as in damn near lifetime) earnings, should amount to essentially a rounding error.
Typical Slashdot editor BS. The article actually says 1.7% less lifetime earnings. So that's about $1000 per year at the US median income. That's still a pretty small amount though.
Re: (Score:2)
More than that, there's no way to control for the million other variables other than "did the military base they lived next to as kids have a fire training facility or not"
Re: (Score:2)
This definitely isn't the final word on the topic, but it's a very strong indicator. And it's not like it's the only strong indicator.
Were I to bet, I'd give 5:3 odds that eventually the findings will bear out this early study. 2:1 feels a bit too high, even though 5:3 feels a bit low. (I'm NOT an expert in the field.)
Re: (Score:1)
Just another it is not my fault option (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The same was known to be true of lead exposure by living near an airport or in inner city areas before leaded gasoline was banned. It's unbelievable to you that other things can stunt brain development as well?
"Nice try pal" Okay, grandpa
Wait a sec... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't seem to be a problem for most rap "artists".
Re: (Score:2)
Since when?
We have no shortage of examples of people with more dollars than sense.
Correlation != causation (Score:4, Informative)
Had to be said. There could be a number of other factors for people growing up in these areas for their modest reduction in attainment. Plus 1.7% could be statistical noise anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Had to be said. There could be a number of other factors for people growing up in these areas for their modest reduction in attainment. Plus 1.7% could be statistical noise anyway.
It's not like you put airbases in affluent areas where the kids receive better educations. Nor do the neighborhoods that encroach on formerly remote airbases tend to be more affluent in nature.
Re: (Score:3)
People are stupid. Even wealthy, successful people.
Anecdote: New where I grew up, there was a little 'hobby farm'. Some chickens, goats, pigs on a dozen or so acres. As the area grew, an interstate highway went through just across the street. And then a state highway crossed that a block away. Because of this intersection, it is the site of a bunch of on and off ramps, state DOT and city equipment maintenance yards and similar facilities. The farmer gave up farming, the environment no longer being suitable
Re: (Score:2)
Economic projection models are always bullshit and one step removed from psychics. If they were for real, anyone could use them to invest and make money which in this case would offset the supposed impacts on success.
Re: (Score:2)
There *certainly* are a number of other factors for people growing up in these areas. This is not a well controlled study, it's a retrospective analysis. That doesn't make it without value, but it does mean that it needs confirmation from other studies.
OTOH, it's most probably correct. This doesn't count as proof, but proof either way is not currently available.
Somewhat plausible. (Score:2)
Some forever chemicals are analogus to estrogen, the "female" hormone. They are proven to lower testosterone and pollution is proven to cause cognitive impairments and delayed brain development or even damage with symptoms like ADHD, OCD and overall increased levels of baseline anxiety and co-morbidities due to impaired functioning and the effect of that in the social domain.
There's even solid proof of chemicals altering the gender profile of a population, with an unusually high quota of girls born in areas
Yeah, this is crap stats (Score:2)
And all you to do is adjust p-values and make whatever claim you want, the sad thing is the media tends to pick up on these types of papers.