Prenatal Pesticide Exposure Leading to Lower IQ?

I recently read an article that talked about a study which was carried out that showed the possibility of pesticides being detrimental to the development of children. This study was done at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Public Health, and looked at organophosphate pesticides that are commonly used on crops, and their effects on children who had prenatal exposure.

            It was found in the study that ever tenfold increase in the amount of organophosphates detected during a pregnancy was associated with a 5.5 point drop in their overall IQ scores (for 7 year olds). The children with the highest levels of prenatal pesticide exposure scored 7 points lower than children who had the lowest levels of exposure in intelligence tests. This study along with other studies at the Mt. Sinai Medical Center and at Columbia University who also tested the relation between prenatal pesticide exposure and a child’s IQ at age 7, were published in the journal entitled Environmental Health Perspectives. The author of the journal commented on how unusual it is to see this much consistency across populations in terms of the results of their studies. The study also found an association between prenatal pesticide exposure and attention problems in children at age 5.

The study began in 1999, and samples of urine were tested for dialkyl phosphate (DAP) metabolites twice during pregnancy and then regularly after birth from 6 months to 5 years of age. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children was used to assess the cognitive abilities of children at the age of 7, including verbal and perceptual comprehension, memory, and processing speed. Similarly to the overall IQ scores, each of these categories of cognitive development showed a significant decrease in the scores of the children exposed to higher levels of DAPs during the mother’s pregnancy. However, it was also shown that pesticide exposure after birth was not correlated to a child’s IQ; only to the exposure to the fetal brain development.

This is a scary situation because so many people are exposed to pesticides that are used around their homes, schools, and communities. I think it is important for consumers to reduce their use of home pesticides, and realize that these chemicals are not the only option. Fruits and vegetables should also by thoroughly washed, and organic products could be bought as an alternative.

Here is a link to the article that I read, where you can learn more about the study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110421082519.htm.

Reducing Gases in Our Atmosphere: Hybrid Cars

I recently did a chemistry project which was studying air quality and the either positive or negative factors that have an effect on air pollution. I was researching hybrid cars, and found it to be very interesting.

When the automobile was first invented the world began to change, as transportation of products and people finally could occur over much greater distances. However, this invention was not without consequence. Oil is one of the earth’s limited fossil fuels that create harmful emissions when burned, including carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Carbon monoxide exposure is directly linked to heart disease, and nitrogen oxides are thought to be at fault for the increase in acid rain. Though carbon dioxide levels are not regulated by the government, high levels of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere with the burning of fuel, and are considered to be a major cause of global warming. These gases released from the burning of fuel are called Greenhouse gases and when they collect up in the atmosphere, they contribute to the Greenhouse effect, as the sun’s rays are able to enter the atmosphere but are not able to escape. While electric-powered cars contribute almost no pollution at all to the atmosphere, they can only travel about 50 km before needing to be recharged. As well, it has not yet been shown that fully electric cars can operate effectively in the Canadian winter. With the introduction of hybrid cars came many advantages in terms of pollution to the atmosphere. Hybrid cars use a sophisticated combination of a powerful electric motor and a small gasoline motor. In this way, they combine the advantages of both gasoline powered and electrically powered vehicles, drastically reducing the harmful carbon emissions which are released into the atmosphere and which contribute to the warming of the earth. The two main benefits of using hybrid cars are that they improve fuel efficiency, as well as reducing harmful emissions. They are able to maintain the power associated with a gasoline engine, while contributing to the environmental benefits associated with an electric engine. By reducing fuel consumption by up to 250 gallons per year, hybrid cars are much more environmentally friendly in terms of air pollutants in the atmosphere. It is estimated that most hybrid cars produce ninety percent less harmful emissions into our atmosphere than traditional vehicles do. Though hybrid cars have several environmental benefits, they are also the cause of other environmental costs, including costs of storage and the factor of pollution of their battery components.

As shown, there is no perfect solution to reducing air pollution. Humans have been known to be at fault for the steady warming of the Earth for quite some time, and many people do not consider all the ways in which they can reduce their carbon footprint. Driving a hybrid car is a very effective and relatively simple way to drastically reduce the amount of air pollution in our atmosphere. Hopefully if everyone works to reduce their individual amount of pollution, the air quality on Earth will slowly improve, because our own pollution does not just affect us, but everyone else around the world.

Thank you. If you are interested in learning about more ways that you can reduce your carbon emissions, you can visit this website: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/reduce-your-carbon-footprint/

Keys to Long Life

            I recently read an article about a personality study which was used to predict how a long a person’s life would be. The findings of the study were published in the Hudson Street Press, and it was called, “The Longevity Project: Surprising Discoveries for Health and Long Life from the Landmark Eight-Decade Study”.

            In 1921, over 1500 students, about the age of 10, began the study, and information was gathered by a Stanford University psychologist named Louis Terman. The study followed the children throughout their lives, gathering data on their family, social relationships, hobbies, pets, job, education level, and many other details. This most recent study was led by Howard S. Friedman (a psychology professor), and Leslie R. Martin, an alumna from the University of California. Subsequently known as The Longevity Project, this study discovered that a person’s risk of dying could be predicted from a personality characteristics and relationships that were formed in their childhood. Before this study, many factors were assumed to be at fault for a person’s risk of dying, such as anxiety, lack of exercise, lack of religion, lack of social well-being, pessimism, and Type A behavioral traits. These factors were, for the first time, able to be studied long-term. The study consistently became more and more complex, as it went on decades longer than expected, and gathered in hundreds of graduates and undergraduates who helped to gain information on The Longevity Project participants. One of the most surprising results that was found, was that the participants who were the most optimistic, joyful, and upbeat, lived shorter lives than those who were not; in other words, the most cautious and determined individuals were those who were alive and healthy for the longest time. It was suspected that maybe this discovery was due to the fact that happy-go-lucky children tended to take more risks in regards to their health, and were more careless. Though it is difficult for many to accept, it was found that happiness is not a main cause of good health.

            The study showed, interestingly, that marriage is good for men’s health, but has little to no effect on women’s health; men who were in a stable marriage lived years beyond 70, whereas men who experienced divorce or never married rarely lived past 70. Another misconception disproved by this study was that working and stressing too much worsened health; it was instead found that committed and career-oriented men and women lived much longer than laid-back men and women. As well, it was shown that people who feel respected and loved do not live longer than those who do not; however, it is obvious that there are health benefits to having positive social relationships.

            I found this study very interesting because, often, so many people are misinformed by others who accept ideas that are told to them. This study showed some of the major misconceptions that are generally accepted by society in regards to health and long life. I think it is important to realize that it is never too late to decide to pursue a healthier path, and that this can only be done when less time is spent worrying about worrying, and more time is spent acting. I think that once people learn about the long term healthy and unhealthy lifestyles that they follow, they will be better able to maximize the healthy lifestyle patterns. I think small changes to a person’s lifestyle can eventually lead them onto a path to health and long life.

            If anyone would like to read more about this incredible study, here is the link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110311153541.htm.

            Thank you.

Obesity Stigma

             A recent article in the journal “Social Psychology Quarterly” addresses an important issue of stigma that many people may not fully appreciate. When we think about stigma we often think about the discrimination and prejudice that occurs against based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. This article by Markus Schafer discusses the adverse health effects of stigma based on body weight. Nobody would be surprised with the finding that obesity is associated with poor overall health. However, Shafer and colleagues found that obese people who experienced weight related discrimination had even worse health outcomes over time than obese people who did not experience such discrimination. The study was based on a ten year follow up study of 1500 Americans and found that obese people who experienced weight discrimination had the sharpest decline in health function over time.

              Obesity is a major challenge in contemporary North American society. Obesity is defined based on body mass index (BMI); BMI values of 26 – 29 are considered overweight and BMI values 30 and higher are considered obese. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that 34% of Americans are overweight and another 34% are obese. In Canada a recent large survey found that 36% of the population is overweight and another 23% is obese. Despite the alarmingly high prevalence of obesity, we are constantly bombarded with media images of people who are uniformly slim, attractive, and beautiful. One might think that with the rising rates of obesity in the US and Canada, that anti-fat prejudices would quickly decline, but this does not appear to be the case. Obesity discrimination is one of the last forms of discrimination that society appears to readily accept. Obese people are pre-judged as being lazy, weak-willed, lacking self-control, or having flawed character. In contrast, scientific evidence finds that the causes of obesity are much more complex and include genetic factors, body metabolism, culture, environment, and socioeconomic status, in addition to behavior.

            Shafer’s study shows that in addition to the adverse health effects of obesity, and the negative psychological effects of experiencing discrimination, obese people suffer a further toll on their health as a result of being discriminated against. So, why do people feel that it is acceptable to discriminate against others based on body weight? Perhaps some feel that fat people could decide to lose weight if only they “put their mind to it” (in other words, they are to blame for their own problems). While this kind of thinking seems intuitive on some levels, it is pretty clear that many many obese people have repeatedly tried and failed to lose weight. Many others have successfully lost weight and are unable to maintain their weight loss. Discrimination against any group of people is fundamentally unfair and causes harm to those who experience the discimination and well as causing harm to the society that condones the violation of the rights of any group of people. Hopefully, increasing awareness of the complex causes of obesity and awareness of the negative impacts on those disciminated against will help reduce this unfortunate social stigma.

            Here is a link to the article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303065211.htm

            Thanks!

Why Are Innocent Suspects Confessing?

            I recently read an article from Science Daily that I found to be very interesting, called “Why Innocent Suspects May Confess to a Crime”. The article was examining the reasons behind people falsely confessing to a crime that they did not commit.

            According to The Innocence Project, out of the 266 post-conviction DNA exonerations over the last 20 years, 25% of them involved a false confession. A study was done by the Iowa State University which tried to understand the reasons for which someone would confess to a crime despite their innocence. The answer came down to short-term versus long-term consequences.

            The first experiment interviewed 81 psychology undergraduates, men and women, about illegal and immoral behaviour. Their admissions and denials were paired with either short-term or long-term consequences, the short-term consequences being a long set of repetitive questions, and the long-term consequences being having to meet with a police officer in a couple months to discuss their answers in full. It was found as a result of this study that the participants made decisions to avoid the proximal (short-term) repetitive questions.

            The second experiment interviewed 143 men and women from Iowa State University in the same manner, except this time, the proximal and distal consequences were reversed (the proximal consequences being going to meet with an officer directly after the interview, and the distal consequences being returning to the lab in a number of weeks to answer repetitive questions). Surprisingly, the results were found to be similar, as the participants tended to accept the long-term effects in order to avoid any short-term annoyances.

            In both experiments the participants responded in a way which eliminated proximal penalties as opposed to distal ones. The researchers think that these results help to explain why an innocent person would confess to a crime which they did not commit. Since DNA evidence is used to exonerate cases which involve atrocious crimes, the innocent suspects assume that the truth will comes out eventually, and that any possibility of long-term consequences like conviction, prison, or even a death sentence, is very unlikely.

Because of this, I think when the suspect weighs the two consequences (proximal and distal) in his/her mind, their behaviour will be shaped in a way that allows them to avoid consequences happening right now, versus the ones that may happen in the future. I think it is wrong that so many people feel the need to falsely confess to a horrible crime that they did not commit, and something must be wrong with the system that it has such a high percentage of suspects being wrongly accused. I see a need for police interrogation methods to change so that it limits these methods from encouraging suspects to make decisions based on gains in the short term, as opposed to telling the truth about their situations.

If anyone is interested in the article, here is a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110218111825.htm.

Thank you.

Doctor Discredited

            I read a pretty disturbing article in the newspaper today called “Doctors, squeal on thyselves”. It was very interesting, and really put things into perspective for me.

This article is about a doctor named Dr. Charles Smith who was thought to be one of Canada’s leading experts in pediatric forensic pathology. Whenever a case needed to be solved regarding an unnatural or suspicious death of a child, Smith was the one called to inspect the body, obtain all essential medical information and evidence, and show his findings in the court of law. Recently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario revoked his license to practice medicine, and made him pay almost $4000 to cover the costs of his hearing, when they discovered that Smith had been sloppy in his work and had failed to adequately investigate several cases. It was found out that Dr. Charles Smith had also greatly exaggerated his credentials, despite his lack of forensic training, in order to cover up his sloppy examining and insufficient evidence and organization, which in many instances, lead to a false conclusion of the case. Because of these flaws, families were destroyed, as parents were wrongly accused of killing their children, resulting in them going to jail, and people were found to be child killers and sex offenders, when they had faced completely false accusations. Smith’s flawed investigations tore families apart and wrongfully accused people of horrific actions in over 20 cases.

I found this article extremely upsetting, because of the fact that someone so illegitimately qualified in the medical field had the power to destroy so many innocent people’s lives. This also brings up an important issue of doctors and their qualification. This case shows that, at least for this specific case, other doctors were not able to publicly report the incompetency of their colleagues or the unacceptable level of care that their colleagues were putting into their work. If people are not willing to stand up and report the truth when these accused families need it the most, then they are not qualified to be practicing medicine. I think because of the accepted presumption that all doctors have the professional qualification to practice, it can cause people to have a false sense of security and cause a lack of questioning of the public in regards to the legitimacy of evidence for a specific case.

Sciences and medical sciences are wonderful tools that can be used to find the answers to many of the world’s important issues, but it is up to the honour and integrity of people to allow for science to help out. These critical failures made by Dr. Charles Smith were not critical failures of science itself, but of the person failing to adequately and truthfully perform his job. It is because of the inherent flaws of people, and not because of the inherent flaws of science, that something as horrible as this was able to happen.

If anyone if interested in reading this article, here is a link: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/doctors-squeal-on-thyselves-115354924.html.

Thank you!

Homosexuality and Science

            I have been recently working a lot on a project for English class in which I am talking about the portrayal of homosexuality in the media, and more specifically, the stereotypes, misconceptions, and discrimination that is associated with this portrayal. Because of this, I thought it would be interesting to learn about homosexuality from a scientific perspective.

            I think it would be fair to say that homosexuality is a topic of strong opinion, for me included. I am very passionate and opinionated in regards to this subject. So many areas of media tell us that homosexuality is wrong and only show a generalized and limited viewpoint of how a gay person is or should be. Because the media is so prominent in society in this day and age, our beliefs can get influenced and even altered to the point where we no longer know how we feel about a subject; instead, we know how people think we should feel about a subject. Most people don’t realize how common homosexuality is, as 10% of the overall population is homosexual. Therefore, any discrimination against homosexual males or females is not just going against gay rights, but it is going against a person’s rights as a human being as well.

There are many reasons for which homosexual people are discriminated against, a large one being religion. There are many literal interpretations of religious writings that seem to make people think that homosexuality is wrong or sinful. Discrimination against an entire group of people, just because they were born a certain way, is not only offensive, but is also completely ridiculous.

I think it is important to take a look at homosexuality from a scientific viewpoint. One of the most common misconceptions about homosexuality is that many people believe homosexuality to be a choice. It has been shown through studies and polls that homosexual people are more likely to be left-handed, to be the youngest of multiple brothers, and to have their hair naturally turn in a clockwise direction. Because of these common traits among gay people, the idea is becoming better accepted that homosexuality has to do with genes and inborn traits, and not with decisions made by the person later in life. In the US, until 2007, a poll showed that the majority of Americans believes homosexuality to be a choice that could be changed. It was only just three years ago that, for the first time, the majority believed homosexuality to be an inborn characteristic. It is shown through scientific research that homosexuality has more to do with genes than does which hand you write with. There is also biological evidence that a percentage of animals show homosexual activity. The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Association of Social Workers all support that idea that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and is not a personal decision.

No matter how or why, homosexuality IS present in our society, and not accepting this fact is just ignorance, in my opinion. Homosexuality is neither a lifestyle nor a personal choice, it is innate and unchangeable. Here is a fantastic animated video I found from the movie “The Bible Tells Me So” that talks about homosexuality not being a choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbpu6ne5-cQ&feature=related