STUDY: Pollution increases risk for prenatal babies

[academic punk]

A study of New york City newborns suiggests that prenatal exposure to air pollution may be linked to genetic changes assocaited with inceased risk of cancer, researchers said yesterday.

The study by Columbia University folowed 60 newborns and their non-smoking mothers in low-income neighborhoods, primarily in Harlem and the Bronx.

Their exposure to combustion-related pollutants caused primarily by vehicles was measured by air moniters worn by the women during the third trimester of their pregnancies.

When the babies were born, genetic alterations were measured. Researchers foudn about a 50% increase in the level of persistent genetci abnormalities in the infants who had the higher levels of exposure, Said Dr. Perera, director of the center and senior author of the study.

[FORD]

ATTENTION BUSHEEP: See how much the Chimperor really cares about the unborn? :mad:

[Little_Skittles]

WHAT OH MY GOSH! this is an outrage! Stupid filthy polluting americans ya'lls really are dumb.

[ELVIS]

ATTENTION LIBERALS:

Pro-abortion lobbyists increase death risk for prenatal babies...


:elvis:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by ELVIS
ATTENTION LIBERALS:

Pro-abortion lobbyists increase death risk for prenatal babies...


:elvis:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That may have been the funniest retort I've ever read on this thing! Nice one, Elvis!

ah, shit, I've spilled milk all over myself...

[ELVIS]

:D

[BigBadBrian]

I guess these risks just began in January of 2001. POOF, they just appeared. They didn't exist before that. :gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I guess these risks just began in January of 2001. POOF, they just appeared. They didn't exist before that. :gulp:


Eek...

I'm afraid we're all missing the point of why I posted this.

First of all, this was a study focusing on NYC, so it's not factory emissions that's the problem: it's pollution from cars. (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc) secondly, it points out that people in lower-income neighborhoods suffer more. (always the case - even when a tsunami hits, it was the poor who really sustained and suffered the most damage.)

The important thing is that there is now CONCLUSIVE evidence of the effects of pollution. So from this point it's matter of where do we go from here? do we just sit back and say, "well, that's the price of industry"? do we say, "well, it's poor, anyway, so fuck 'em"? or do we say, "stricter fuel emission caps are important and need to be imposed on the auto industry"?

YOU yourself said you hate smoking BBB...this is actually ten times worse. this is the equivalent of a pregnant woman smoking five packs a day or being constantly exposed to second-hand smoke by a group of tobacco lobbyists 24 hours a day.

[The Scatologist]

You know, the U.S. is probably the only country DUMB enough to still have to do research to find this shit out.


Just like they FINALLY found out carbs make you fat a couple years ago, when sumo wrestlers have been loading up with it for ages.

(Yet most of this country is still too dumb to know that Atkins does not fucking make you healthier in any way. It's called fucking moderation!)

[Little_Skittles]

Originally posted by The Scatologist
You know, the U.S. is probably the only country DUMB enough to still have to do research to find this shit out.


Just like they FINALLY found out carbs make you fat a couple years ago, when sumo wrestlers have been loading up with it for ages.

(Yet most of this country is still too dumb to know that Atkins does not fucking make you healthier in any way. It's called fucking moderation!)


Actually you're wrong. Studies have shown that it just depends on which group you evoled from hunters and gathers or farmers, as to whether metabolism is best on a meat diet or fruits and veggies.

[The Scatologist]

Hmmm makes sense, learn something new every day :D.


You have to admit, that this topic is still sorta a DUH thing though.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk
Eek...

I'm afraid we're all missing the point of why I posted this.

First of all, this was a study focusing on NYC, so it's not factory emissions that's the problem: it's pollution from cars. (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, etc) secondly, it points out that people in lower-income neighborhoods suffer more. (always the case - even when a tsunami hits, it was the poor who really sustained and suffered the most damage.)

The important thing is that there is now CONCLUSIVE evidence of the effects of pollution. So from this point it's matter of where do we go from here? do we just sit back and say, "well, that's the price of industry"? do we say, "well, it's poor, anyway, so fuck 'em"? or do we say, "stricter fuel emission caps are important and need to be imposed on the auto industry"?

YOU yourself said you hate smoking BBB...this is actually ten times worse. this is the equivalent of a pregnant woman smoking five packs a day or being constantly exposed to second-hand smoke by a group of tobacco lobbyists 24 hours a day.

Point taken. My response, however, was aimed at those who simply see this as a partisan issue. It is not. I think there is enough blame to go around on this one. :gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by The Scatologist

You have to admit, that this topic is still sorta a DUH thing though. [/B]

Maybe the empirical evidence seems plain enough, but then again, doctors used to recommend smoking Lucky Strikes for that pesky sore throat. Why because the empirical evidence showed that after a few days your sore throat did in fact alleviate (these days we'd credit the body's immune system, not tobacco, for that).

Do you think the auto industry would do anything without HARD evidence of the need for it? Tobacco - for example - for years was able to say there is no conclusive evidence between smoking and lung cancer - and technically they're right - the effects take so long to take place that how could you really prove that tobacco was the fault?

A study just like this one is how.