Does being rich in Los Angeles cause autism ...

[Texano78704]

Last edited Tue Mar 18, 2014, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Or, how chemophobia takes the place of science.

In mainstream media, everywhere from Fox News to Time (and here on Science 2.0, though with a little more skepticism) a bizarre study is all the rage - pesticides and other environmental toxins will give your kid a malformed penis and cause autism. And state regulations...prevent it.

http://www.science20.com/science_20/no_pesticides_did_not_give_your_child_tiny_penis_or_autism-131863

[ret5hd]

1. After perusing a couple of articles there...

I can only conclude that the site is only a pro-chemical-industry anti-environmentalist site without a scintilla of balance.

[Nine]

4. You appear to be correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Council_on_Science_and_Health

On the May 14, 2009 episode of the satirical late night show The Daily Show, correspondent Samantha Bee noted the ACSH's opposition to the Obama family's organic garden and the organization's funding by the petroleum, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries.[17]

Reviews and assessments

The ACSH is known as an "industry-friendly" group.[18] In 1982, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a watchdog and consumer advocacy group, known to spar with ACSH, published an extensive report on ACSH's practices that stated, "ACSH appears to be a consumer fraud; as a scientific group, ACSH seems to arrive at conclusions before conducting studies. Through voodoo or alchemy, bodies of scientific knowledge are transmogrified into industry-oriented position statements."[19] CSPI director Michael F. Jacobson said of ACSH, '"This organization promotes confusion among consumers about what is safe and what isn't... ACSH is using a slick scientific veneer to obscure and deny truths that virtually everyone else agrees with."[20]

I'm not going to bother reading the article.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. No, but it sure seems to cause some form of brain damage.

[chrisa]

3. Everything causes autism

Don't get vaccinated, don't drink water, and don't eat. Also, don't breath air. Then you'll be fine and dandy!

[KT2000]

5. why post from a

corporate propaganda website? Please check out their board of directors and membership. Inform yourself of their activities in relation to public health.

Also - chemophobia is a word made up by corporate PR people to ridicule anyone who questions the safety of chemical products.

[Texano78704]

8. I don't ridicule

anyone who questions "the safety of chemical products." However, if you ignore the science that shows chemical additives are safe, isn't that just being contrary?

[KT2000]

13. your source

practices ridicule. It is not a site to be trusted.
I just question why anyone would use them as a source. Learn from actual research, not this organization's interpretation of it. Also be aware that articles and selective review of the literature articles are created by industry paid people to supply talking points.

Using the term chemophobia is a big tip-off for industry PR.

[Texano78704]

6. So far, only ad hominems

No actual refutation of science.

Only problem is, the study in question provided no evidence of causes, much less a link to pollution–and even if we took other studies alleging a link at face value, it wouldn’t even be the same kind of “pollution.” As it is, the authors of this paper didn’t look at “pollution” of any kind. They looked at genital malformations present at birth and claimed that these conditions serve as a proxy or substitute for the presence of “pollution.” They don’t, and no reports have established that they could.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2014/03/16/autism-pollution-and-genital-malformations-the-missing-link/

[DanTex]

7. That's a perfect characterization of the blog link you posted.

I don't know much about this study, but based on the fact that the only objections you've found come from a right-wing corporate front blog, my opinion of the study is improving.

[Texano78704]

10. I wouldn't characterize

the writer Emily Willingham, who is also a contributor to Scientific American, as a "right-wing corporate front blog" writer. However, you may have more info that I do.

[DanTex]

11. Well, now you've changed the link in the OP.

Still, this "Science 2.0" blog links back to the other corporate front blog that you had up earlier. And linking to a Forbes article doesn't exactly help shake the corporate front feeling either.

As far as the science. I don't really see what these people are all up in arms about. Using proxy variables isn't some kind of weird voodoo, it's very common. They use proxies in climate studies also (e.g. tree rings, ice cores, etc.). So I'm not really going to be impressed by some blogger sarcastically deriding the use of proxy variables. Instead, that kind of reaction is going to make me question the blogger's motivations and understanding of science.

The study in question appears to be by a credentialed scientist, and published in a peer reviewed journal. And the idea that environmental variables contribute to autism risk doesn't sound too outlandish to me. This isn't some anti-vaccine thing.

[Texano78704]

12. Corrected, yes

The Forbes article points out that the study does not take into account genetic factors, as well as some other weaknesses.


I'm not sure what the issue is with needing to "shake the corporate front feeling." Is it not possible that you might share the same opinion or position?

[DanTex]

14. "Corrected" = changed. The link before was working. It just pointed to a more transparent

corporate front group.

I'm sure it's possible the author of the study didn't take some factors into account. I'm not an expert in autism, but I am a scientist, so I know how these things work. In fact, I would bet that whatever factors that the Forbes author pointed out were also listed in a discussion section of the original paper as potential factors to look at in future studies. It's not very hard to make an intelligent-sounding blog post listing supposed factors that weren't controlled for. Determining whether the blogger actually has a point would require some domain specific expertise that I don't have and I don't feel like trying to research for myself. Instead, I look at the totality of the evidence, which to me indicates that this is a reasonable study, if not the be-all-end-all. What is most confusing to me is why these bloggers are all up in arms about it.

Regarding the corporate front thing, let's review the chronology:
1) You post a link to a corporate front blog
2) You change the link to some other blog I've never heard of, which links to the original corporate front blog
3) In order to back up your story, you post a link to a Forbes article
So the whole thing has the feel of corporate/libertarian science denial. Forbes has a number of science columnists that deny climate change in one form or another (whether it exists or whether it is caused mainly by humans). One of the several reasons why I don't generally look to Forbes for "fair and balanced" assessments of scientific studies.

[Texano78704]

15. Fair enough

You do make some good points about the blogs. However, with regard to the Forbes article, I consider the author and not just the fact that the article is on Forbes.com. Thanks for your input.

[KamaAina]

9. Does that mean I'll get rich if I move to L.A.?