1 of 2
1
A little update.
Posted: 30 April 2014 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6010
Joined  2009-02-26

This may be of interest to people living in Washington, but also of general interest.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/rare-birth-defects-still-spiking-washington-state-n86916

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 May 2014 04:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2156
Joined  2007-04-26

This was also posted under science and technology

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 May 2014 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  261
Joined  2011-09-13

I’m not trying to start a conspicary theory but I do find it interesting that this area was the hub of developement for the plutonimum bomb in WWll.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2014 02:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Don’t worry.  They are recommending folic acid supplements.  That should take care of whatever the problem is.  Ya think?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2014 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Babies being born without most or parts of their brains, pushes emotional buttons for me.  So I was tempted to say something bitterly sarcastic, like, You lefty, tree-hugging, socialist Nazis, are at it again.  Trying to initiate another hoax about something terrible happening because of human actions, to further your liberal agenda.  Everyone knows that babies being born, in repeated clusters in certain localities, happens all the time.  It is a naturally occurring cycle.  Anthropogenic, my ass.

I was tempted to say that.  But instead, I had a vague recollection of this happening in south Texas some years ago.  I looked up several articles on it.  It was happening in 14 counties along the Mexican border and first brought to light in 1992-93.  A few million dollars were spent, to no avail, to determine the cause.  The clusters apparently continued to occur, peaking again around 1998.  Still no identified cause, though various sources of pollution were suspected, and looked at.  Then, I saw an article from 2006, that seemed to have pinned down the culprit: corn that had a fungus containing fumonisin, a toxin associated with birth defects. Hispanic women, in the areas, were found to have a higher level of fumonisin, and were twice as likely to have the babies with birth defects.  Presumably, they also ate more corn tortillas.  Okay, so problem solved?...  I then see a much more recent study that doesn’t seem to have any clear answers, and doesn’t even mention corn, fungus, or fumonisin.  But it does mention folic acid.  AFAIK, a higher than normal percentage of birth defects are still occurring down there.

I guess reality can be more bitter than sarcasm.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2014 01:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2156
Joined  2007-04-26

As mentioned in the other thread which I referenced above, most of these so clusters turn out ot be nothing more than statistical flukes with nothing in common but their apparent proximity to each other. While some investigation may be warranted from the public health authorities very few will ever be due to tainted water or food or air or any other public health risk.

As an example, On Long Island ( NY) there is a higher incidence of breast cancer than average. The public demanded an investigation and millions were spent on a large study done over a number of years. The final results did not link breast cancer to any environmental factors. What was more upsetting is that the breast cancer patient groups and local politicians were so enraged by the results that they came out in the press demanding that those in charge of the study be fired.

When people see a cluster it seems to be human nature to want to believe there is some common cause but more often than not the cluster or association is a mirage. We don;t get upset if 10 cases of brain cancer occur along 100 mile stretch of highway but if those same cases occur along a 10 mile stretch everyone is much more fearful and concerned.

[ Edited: 24 May 2014 01:17 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2014 01:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 24 May 2014 01:08 PM

As mentioned in the other thread which I referenced above, most of these so clusters turn out ot be nothing more than statistical flukes with nothing in common but their apparent proximity to each other. While some investigation may be warranted from the public health authorities very few will ever be due to tainted water or food or air or any other public health risk.

As an example, On Long Island ( NY) there is a higher incidence of breast cancer than average. The public demanded an investigation and millions were spent on a large study done over a number of years. The final results did not link breast cancer to any environmental factors. What was more upsetting is that the breast cancer patient groups and local politicians were so enraged by the results that they came out in the press demanding that those in charge of the study be fired.

When people see a cluster it seems to be human nature to want to believe there is some common cause but more often than not the cluster or association is a mirage. We don;t get upset if 10 cases of brain cancer occur along 100 mile stretch of highway but if those same cases occur along a 10 mile stretch everyone is much more fearful and concerned.

Yes, much like the hoax of AAF (anthropogenic ass fatness).  My ass being fatter than normal has never conclusively been scientifically determined to be due to human causes, though most dieticians would point to simple correlations between my ass fatness and my dietary intake and dearth of physical activity.  We could waste millions trying to definitively determine the true cause of my ass fatness, but the sad truth is we will probably never know for sure.

And even if we knew, conclusively, that my ass fatness was due to human activity (or human inactivity) (Hmmph, fat chance of that) attempts to correct the problem would, no doubt, cause more harm than good.

[ Edited: 24 May 2014 01:35 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 May 2014 07:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

No response?  Perhaps I have obfuscated my points, or perhaps no one other than I appreciates, what I consider to be, elegantly scripted biting satire.  I shall attempt to clarify my thoughts on this matter.

Even if it is true that we humans only become concerned about babies being born without brains, when it occurs in “statistically anomalous clusters in certain localities”, and even if it is true that there are rarely, if ever, actual common causes, the fact is that we do get concerned, at times, because “statistically anomalous clusters in certain localities” have been recurring for some time, now.  And lots of money has apparently been wasted in doing scientific studies, when the best resulting answers are: “We don’t know.”,  “We may never know conclusively.” , and “Expectant mothers should take more folic acid.”  And meanwhile, the costs of caring for babies with much of their brains missing, is likely even greater than the cost of the ineffective research. 

It occurs to me that there may be something fundamentally inadequate about the scientific methodologies that have been employed. e.g., Perhaps (just a thought) single subject research designs should be employed, rather than the more traditional group designs that attempt to weed out, one at a time, the potentially thousands of possible variables, to no avail.  Or we could be content to wait further decades for the results of longitudinal studies, (also traditional), and perhaps get similar, apparently useless results in another 20 something years. 

Or we (not I) but we, in general, can be content with the answer, that when enough babies are born, it is just going to happen, sometimes, that some of them will be born without brains. So there is really nothing to be done about it, except “Take those folic acid supplements.”

Or perhaps we really don’t want to know the possible multitude of causes of babies being born without brains.  (There is a cause, or various causes.)  But do we want to negatively effect the corn tortilla industry if only one in a million babies are born without brains, due to an occasional fungus toxicity?  And disrupt the chemical industry, the coal industry, the oil and gas industry, the fertilizer industry, etc., if just one in a million babies are born without brains, due to associated pollutants?  And disrupt the nuclear energy industry, if only one in a million brainless baby births is due to radiation poisoning?  And waste boatloads of money trying to detect some mysterious seemingly innocuous virus that only leads to one brainless baby birth out of a million? etc., etc., etc.? Of course not.  I mean even Captain Kirk and Spock taught us that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the one…  Or wait… was it the other way around?

[ Edited: 24 May 2014 08:00 PM by TimB ]
 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2156
Joined  2007-04-26

Tim I had pointed out in the other post on this subject that we are always going to see some “clumpiness” even in a pretty random distribution of human diseases so it is quite possible and even likely that the majority of these clusters have no external environmental causes so it is reasonable to investigate these clusters but I woud certainly not break the bank trying to find the cause of every cluster of 50 or 100 cases.

You seem to thin there is a better way to investigate clusters. Perhaps you could elaborate on that further.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 09:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16

The problem is that most people have a rather primitive understanding of probability and statistics.  They are sure there is some underlying meaning to all these clusters.  Everyone knows that heads come up 50% of the time with coin tosses, but we also know that we can have runs of a half dozen or more of either heads or tails, and we don’t bother asking what the hidden meaning of this is. 

On the other side, I’m sure that if we did a search of a wide variety of medical conditions, we’d find areas where they occurred less frequently than they did on average.  How should we handle that information?

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 12:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
macgyver - 25 May 2014 04:09 AM

Tim I had pointed out in the other post on this subject that we are always going to see some “clumpiness” even in a pretty random distribution of human diseases so it is quite possible and even likely that the majority of these clusters have no external environmental causes so it is reasonable to investigate these clusters but I woud certainly not break the bank trying to find the cause of every cluster of 50 or 100 cases.

You seem to thin there is a better way to investigate clusters. Perhaps you could elaborate on that further.

Investigating clusters the way they have been investigated, has apparently been, essentially, fruitless, in coming up with any useful results, if the point is to determine why a small percentage of births, are of babies who are missing brain parts.  Perhaps money would be better spent in designing and carrying out rigorous, individual, case studies of each and every baby that is born without all of its brains.  I am not familiar with the methodologies of the research that has been done,  but since there is nothing very worthwhile to show from it, after decades, it seems reasonable to me to question those methodologies.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 12:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 25 May 2014 09:47 AM

...
On the other side, I’m sure that if we did a search of a wide variety of medical conditions, we’d find areas where they occurred less frequently than they did on average.  How should we handle that information?

Occam

I imagine that would just be described as statistically anomalous, also.  Okay, fine, we know that they are usually statistical anomalies (in clusters or in areas with lower than usual occurrences).  Great.  That tells us it is usually not a common, single cause. But that’s about all that it tells us. The babies who are actually born brainless, did not develop that condition because of statistics.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 04:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5550
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting TimB:

The babies who are actually born brainless, did not develop that condition because of statistics.

  I think you missed my point, Tim.  Just as every effect has a cause, being born without a brain indicates that there was something that caused that.  And there may be a whole host of causes, genetic, chemical, physical, eetc. that could be implicated. 

Let’s assume that out of every 1,000,000 births 2,000 are born with a brain defect,  that’s 0.2%.  Should we expect that there will be 1,999 normal births, then one defective one?  Following that, another 1,999 then a defect?  Then another 1,999 then one damaged?  Of course not, just as we don’t expect heads and tails to alternate. 

I’m sure some research doctors are searching for the causes, and possible preventive measures, however, just because one city has five defects in 2,000 births, and another has only one in 2,000 births doesn’t mean we should jump to the conclusion that there are special circumstances that caused these different ratios.  While it may be the case, it’s far more likely that the differences are just random occurrances similar to heads or tails coming up five times in a row.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 08:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04
Occam. - 25 May 2014 04:25 PM

Quoting TimB:

The babies who are actually born brainless, did not develop that condition because of statistics.

  I think you missed my point, Tim.  Just as every effect has a cause, being born without a brain indicates that there was something that caused that.  And there may be a whole host of causes, genetic, chemical, physical, eetc. that could be implicated. 

Let’s assume that out of every 1,000,000 births 2,000 are born with a brain defect,  that’s 0.2%.  Should we expect that there will be 1,999 normal births, then one defective one?  Following that, another 1,999 then a defect?  Then another 1,999 then one damaged?  Of course not, just as we don’t expect heads and tails to alternate. 

I’m sure some research doctors are searching for the causes, and possible preventive measures, however, just because one city has five defects in 2,000 births, and another has only one in 2,000 births doesn’t mean we should jump to the conclusion that there are special circumstances that caused these different ratios.  While it may be the case, it’s far more likely that the differences are just random occurrances similar to heads or tails coming up five times in a row.

Occam

Perhaps we are speaking past each other.  We agree that something causes a baby to be born without a brain.  I implicitly acknowledged that the causes could be one or a combination of some of a whole host of factors.  I acknowledged that statistical clusters can occur anomalously (without a common cause). (Your response here, seems to suggest that I acknowledged none of those things. ???)

What I did not acknowledge is your surety that “research doctors are searching for the causes, and possible preventive measures”. At least, they don’t seem to me to be doing so, very effectively. If there was effective research in this matter, don’t you think that after decades of such research, there would be recommendations beyond, “take more folic acid supplements”? 

I think that you missed my point, and went on to re-assert the point made by McGyver (which I have already acknowledged).

Again, my point is that knowing that there is a certain number of children that will be born brainless, and knowing that these may, by chance, cluster in certain localities without common cause/s, tells us almost nothing about the actual causes. 

Repeatedly making the statistical cluster anomaly point, is not sufficient in addressing the problem of babies being be born without brains. Just as “Take folic acid supplements.” as the prime recommendation for addressing the problem is not sufficient. 

I don’t know if babies have been being born (without brains) throughout human history or whether it has increased or decreased in rate, or stayed the same, in rate, over time.  But I am aware that it was happening in 1992 and has continued to happen since.  That’s at least the past 22 years.  So, again, after, at least, 22 years, where is the effective research that has lead to reports that indicate ways to avoid having a baby without a brain, other than to suggest taking folic acid?

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 09:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

Okay, I just saw that the CDC says that anencephaly (brainless or partially brainless babies) occurs in the 1st month of fetal development.  They think that folic acid deficiency may sometimes play a role, simply because there has been a 27% decrease in anencephaly since folic acid was introduced as a food additive to grains. 

If folic acid deficiency, does indeed play a role in anencephaly, then why does every woman of child bearing age not know to make damn sure she has plenty of folic acid in her system if she ever gets sperm anywhere near her eggs?  Why did I not know that when I was getting my sperm close to eggs?  Something seems terribly wrong, to me, with our nation’s information dissemination.

If a woman is already pregnant for a month, IT IS TOO LATE to worry about folic acid or anything else, to prevent anencephaly.

There should be rules that everyone who is capable of reproduction knows. Here’s a couple that I suggest: 1) females who are capable of reproduction should not fuck any guy with viable semen, when her folic acid level is low.  2) guys with viable semen should never fuck any female who can get pregnant, when her folic acid is low.

The CDC also said that Hispanic women are more likely to have anencephalic babies.  But said that it remains a mystery as to why.  (Nothing about fumonisin.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2014 09:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3052
Joined  2011-11-04

On second thought, since they are only going on a correlation of decreased anencephaly since the introduction of folic acid additives to food, it seems to me that it could alternatively or also be that sperm is defective in males with low folic acid levels.

So add rule number 3) guys with viable semen, who have any hope of ever fucking a woman who is capable of reproduction, should not only use a damn sturdy rubber if they want to prevent pregnancy, but should also make sure that their own diet is consistently rich in folic acid, in case they don’t prevent pregnancy.

Will most guys follow such rules?  Very doubtful.  But at least, if they subsequently father an anencephalic baby, they will know that they may have caused it.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1