Breathing dirty air may lower kids' IQ

JBR: couldn't one argue that people with higher IQs tend to earn more and move to places with less poluted air?

That doesn't make much sense to me, even aside from the adults vs. kids aspect. I don't think very many of even the smartest people really know this stat or have the luxury to leave, at least when factored against other reasons to stay. It's not that there aren't smart people in the local area. There's a national laboratory and lots of medical doctors. Most doctors probably know this is the asthma capital of the country. Why don't they leave for their own health? Better yet, why don't the smart people of east Tennessee force the rest of us to clean our air? They could help us figure out how to do it. Smart people aren't especially selfish, are they?

If smart people did what was best, even if it was self-serving, we'd have far fewer problems in this world.

P.S. OK, that last sentence doesn't make sense either. But the point is that smarter people don't naturally fix society's problems nor do they necessarily choose the best lifestyle choices for themselves.

Post new comment

Upcoming events:

Cause and effect

Submitted by Sandra Clark on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 3:30pm.

I agree with that

Submitted by jbr on Sat, 2008/02/16 - 4:59pm.

I agree with that likelihood. But I interpret the research to be referring to children's development. Comparing how proximity to pollution seems to diminish their IQ from what it would normally be without it. Whatever that may be.

One of the reasons

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2008/02/18 - 3:04pm.

One of the reasons scientists take so many statistics classes, study methodology and submit their studies to peer review prior to publication is so obvious alternate hypotheses can be considered. I am virtually certain your idea was pondered and tested during analysis, if not built into the experimental design from the beginning.

Probably. But they also

Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Tue, 2008/02/19 - 12:25am.

Probably. But they also know that data can be interpreted many different ways and use that knowledge based on who is funding the study and the desired outcome.

who is funding the study Is

Submitted by rikki on Tue, 2008/02/19 - 10:20am.

who is funding the study

Is that really the kind of charge that can be tossed out willy-nilly? Is there a commercial drug involved in this study? Whose financial interests are served by "the desired outcome"? Was this privately funded research?

By reading the linked MSNBC report on the study, you can see that Sandra's hypothesis was factored into the analysis and shown not to account for the observed trend. Shouldn't you provide some bare scrap of evidence to support your accusation, or do you think the lead author being a postdoctoral fellow at Harvard School of Public Health is adequate grounds to assume fraud?

What? I didn't accuse anyone

Submitted by CathyMcCaughan on Tue, 2008/02/19 - 10:59am.

What? I didn't accuse anyone of anything. Someone suggested that people go to school to learn how to avoid "high ice cream consumption increases murders" research. I simply commented that schools don't teach ethics, they give skills and those skills can be applied fairly or not so fairly. The hostility is not necessary.