Autism Linked (?) to Air Pollutants in the SF Bay Area
Autism in children in the San Francisco Bay Area is 50% more likely to occur in children born in neighborhoods “with high amounts of several toxic air contaminants, particularly mercury,” according to a study by the California Department of Health Services whose results were reported in the June 23rd Los Angeles Times. Scientists were quick to caution about the uncertainty of an autism/air pollutant link and noted that more evidence is needed.
The largest limitation or uncertainty in the Bay Area study is that the pollution data did not come from measurements of compounds to which the mothers were actually exposed. Instead, they were based on estimates calculated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency using computer modeling of industrial emissions.
Windham said that “there could be other explanations” for the link they found. For example, it could be that women who live in the worst-polluted areas also smoke more or eat more contaminated seafood. The scientists did not track down the mothers to compare lifestyles.
If you Google autism pollution, you will find references to mercury pollution, environmental pollution, and more—–and while studies are being done to prove or dispute these connections, I see a bigger connection building up in the public’s mind:
Autism is linked to pollution.
Autism is pollution.
And that is a connection I do not think should be made.
24 opinions for Autism Linked (?) to Air Pollutants in the SF Bay Area
Joseph
Jun 24, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Administrative autism prevalence is well known to be roughly correlated with degree of urbanization. Researchers usually assume this has to do with pollution. There are many other variables to consider, however. In California itself there are places less polluted than the Bay Area with higher autism prevalence. (I did an analysis of regional differences in California a while back where I argued that differeces are not likely of true prevalence).
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 24, 2006 at 2:35 pm
That was my sense—–are you thinking of the Sacramento area?
Joseph
Jun 24, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Yes, that’s a good example. Sacramento is a heavily populated area, with a low prevalence of autism and a low prevalence of mental retardation.
Joseph
Jun 24, 2006 at 2:53 pm
I have a table with ratios to epilepsy here. Sacramento is the Alta California regional center. The Far Northern regional center is a very sparsely populated area if you look at a map, and its ratios are similar to those of Sacramento. The Fresno area, which has a population of half a million or so, has the lowest prevalence in the state. West LA has higher prevalence than East LA. In essense, there’s no clear pattern. A cultural explanation for prevalence differences is more likely.
María Luján
Jun 24, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Hi Kristina
I personally think that only ONE way of impact can not be considered definitory. Air, food and water pollution must be considered (and also other points such as xenobiotics of any source) as potential stressors.
The idea of autism =pollution for me depends on the interpretation of every person. I think you are mentioning as worrisome the extrapolation to autistic people. One thing is the discussion of the diagnosis and impact of environment for me. A different world is when we talk of autistic people.
Even when I consider that my son has been very adversely affected by xenobiotics, this does not imply a negative view of him, the human being he is.
Am I understanding well your concern?
TIA
María Luján.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 24, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Maria, Exactly yes—-as you know, when autism is the subject, the complications pile up quickly.
Joseph, I have been thinking of a cultural explanation. I grew up in the SF Bay Area and have ties to Sacramento and know that there are places of extreme wealth and—not always that far away—-the extreme opposite. I would like to know more about the “neighborhoods” the study describes.
María Luján
Jun 24, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Hi Kristina
Thank you. I understand because I have the same concerns. Personally I think that is possible to discuss with respect and consideration about ALL the potential collaborators in autism without the quick piling up of complications but it involves an effort and, as you say,problems are real and more and more related to the confusion of the Autism with the autistic/s person/people. I also consider that it is not easy but the confussion is such that for me autism definition/s is/are misused several times, producing more and more confusion. Unfortunately, the extrapolation is more and more common in the media, for example, and I do not see an effort to really present/discuss a modern overview -complete with all the components, genetics, epigenetics, behavioral, familiar and sociological- to separate the research and the discussion about autism from the needed respect to autistic people.
María Luján
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jun 24, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Well put, Marîa—–people, and the media in particular, prefer sound byte sort of answers, rather than the complexities we see in our children and live with, and seek to understand.
Autism Vox » We Need To Get Beyond the Blame
Jun 28, 2006 at 12:19 pm
[…] Where we once blamed an “internal agent”—ourselves, us autism parents—-for causing autism, many parents (not this one or some others) now believe that an “external agent”—-mercury, environmental pollution, and more—has caused their child to “become” autistic. After all, who would want to the cause of this “disorder,” the toughest cases of which can be harrowing for parents, some of whom have to watch their children constantly for fear they will jump in front of a car, bang their head against a wall, or lash out at others. Some parents describe the most extreme cases as being like having a hyperactive 2-year-old who never grows out of his impulsive, risky behaviors. ( Painful questions of blame, Chicago Tribune) […]
Autism Vox
Jul 19, 2006 at 12:32 pm
[…] Mercury. Thimerasol. Vaccines. Heavy metals. Air pollution. Genetics. iPods: These and more have been cited as potential causes of autism; the question “what causes autism” can lead to some inflammatory (to put it mildly) debate. But one thing is clear among the proponents of the various theories of the cause of autism: The parents, and their parenting practices, are not the cause. […]
liquid zeolite
Apr 18, 2008 at 1:17 pm
The autism records you cite are worthless IMO because WE DON”T KNOW at what state of mercury toxicity “autism” takes root. WE DON”T KNOW where the parents lived or worked at the time their child received mercury poisoning. They could have been working at or near a factory that creates mercury pollution, they could have been living in another state where mercury pollution is high, etc. So to me, any analysis, assumption, or theory based on regional autism records is a flawed argument that couldn’t and wouldn’t stand cross examination in a court of law. (maybe here however)
I went to college in the bay area, I know it well. I lived in Orinda which is near a polluted oil refining city just over the hill on the sac river side. There are two possible pollution sources in the bay area. One is the navy base. (I don’t trust the gov when it comes to polluting the environment) and two, the oil refineries. They’re not in SF per se but close enough. When they say SF they often mean the bay area that runs from N san jose to the wine country east to near stockton. (disco bay is considered bay area) The air quality generally speaking in the bay area is very good because of the delta breezes that constantly blow the pollution inland. There are a few valleys that receive this pollution which are considered the worst pollution cities in California. People living there have to be suffering from all kinds of ailments. If people live there for a few years then move inland and their child develops autism in a “clean” city, the autism record will show the clean city spawned the autistic child. Hence, my assertion that such records are meaningless.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Apr 18, 2008 at 1:25 pm
But is any place “clean” these days…… Translating Autism has a recent post about the purported mercury/autism link.
liquid zeolite
Apr 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm
I guess by clean I mean void of a coal burning plant that puts mercury in the air or a manufacturing plant that puts mercury into the water or air. It’s true most cities have polluted air. It’s just that certain polluters also put mercury into the air. I think this should be studied but nobody is interested in paying for such a study (gov or big business). Add to that the fact we’re in dire need of energy. I personally prefer nuclear over coal because of the mercury connection and wish more people were informed on this subject. Oh well.
liquid zeolite
Apr 20, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Hello Doc,
With all due respect, this is the type of junk science that really bothers me. They did a study showing that the mercury level in non autistic kids was similar to the mercury level in autistic kids. What does that have to do with mercury, a known neurotoxin, causing autism? What was the mercury level in the brain at the time autism developed? What was the level when they were in the womb? …at 1 year? What type of diet do these kids eat? Do autism kids process and eliminate their food the same as non autistic kids?
There are obviously a lot of factors that go into developing autism. It seems to me the drug companies are trying to fund study after study to suggest mercury is not the cause of autism, for obvious reasons. I’m more interested in the studies that reveal the damaging effects of mercury on the underdeveloped brain, for instance the brain neuron damage. To sum up, the fact that autistic and non autistic children may have similar mercury poisoning levels does not prove that autism is or is not caused by mercury because we do not know at what stage said toxic causes the brain damage, we only know that mercury causes brain damage, period.
daedalus2u
Apr 20, 2008 at 4:36 pm
How about the Faroe Islands, where there was an excellent study of mercury levels in children at birth, measured via cord blood. Briefly, there was a 996 consecutive birth cohort that was measured at birth for mercury in cord blood. There were 747 children with cord blood mercury levels above 65 nM/L and 249 with levels above 201 nM/L. In the 1404 children born during that 2 year period including that tested cohort, there were 5 cases of ASDs, 2 of autism and 3 of Asperger’s.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17029020
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2005/7842/7842.html
In the infamous DeSoto et al reanalysis of the Ip et al paper, there were 2 children with blood mercury levels above 60 nM/L (one control, one with autism). They were rejected as “outliers”.
So if 65 nM/L mercury in cord blood doesn’t cause autism, what basis is there for thinking that much smaller amounts will cause it?
None at all.
Joseph
Apr 20, 2008 at 6:32 pm
This is an old post, isn’t it?
One thing I didn’t mention back then is that I contacted Dr. Windham. I argued that ascertainment of autism is inequivalent across different parts of the Bay Area. This can easily be demonstrated by looking at client characteristics in 3 regional centers. It’s not surprising that children who come from areas with higher urbanicity would be more likely to be diagnosed with autism. I did not get a satisfactory response from Dr. Windham.
FWIW, since then, Palmer et al. have done a follow-up of their Texas study where they claim to have controlled for urbanicity, and still find an effect, albeit small. I haven’t had a chance to analyze their results.
liquid zeolite
Apr 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“How about the Faroe Islands, where there was an excellent study of mercury levels in children at birth, measured via cord blood.”
My basic stance is that I don’t trust any research conducted by anyone with any connections to pharma (ie, AMA, other world organizations, etc) I can’t accept due to the obvious conflict of interest any study that is conducted under pressure from that conflict of interest. Remember, the tobacco company doctors and scientists said that smoking wasn’t harmful or addicting? Do you trust those studies or do you dismiss them for their obvious conflict of interest? If you’re smart, you’ll dismiss them.
Until the drug companies stop funding the AMA, studies, etc, I will see this obvious conflict of interest as a reason not to trust the findings.
However, back to that study. What can we deduce, if it were true, that mercury in the womb does not cause autism. Without knowing the the mothers diet (do they eat a healthier diet than us westerners?) do they have good digestion and elimination organs? Once outside the womb, how quickly is said mercury eliminated? Did the autistic children show poor digestion and elimination vs the non autistic-high mercury infants? How high was the mercury level for those children at 1 yr, 1 yrs, 3 yrs, etc? What was their mercury level at that time?
You see, we see information differently. I always over-analyze everything to come to a conclusion whereas these studies seem to take one piece of the puzzle and form an opinion from partial evidence or sound bites vs the big picture.
I would like the doctors to answer this question about the AMA. Do you not feel that the conflict of interest between the medical establishment and doctors creates a environment where doctors have to do and say whatever the big drug companies mandate or else risk repercussions? I’ve read whee doctors who speak up against vaccinations for instance or suggest they may be harmful to their clients risk all kinds of problems. Is this true?
daedalus2u
Apr 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Very convenient mind-set you have there, it lets you reject any evidence that you don’t like and accept any that you do like no matter how unreliable.
The Faroe Islands mercury study was done in 1986 and 1987. A decade before it was suggested that autism might be caused by exposure to mercury. There have been follow-up studies looking at the same children over time.
They actually did follow up those children. You can go to the literature and read the results they reported on them. They did intelligence testing on those children too, in addition to testing mercury levels.
The authors declare who funded the research, that those funding the research didn’t influence the outcome, and that they have no financial interest in the results.
Do you have the same evidentiary standards for the “parasite zapper” that you are selling and making money off of? Who funded the research showing the “parasite zappers” actually work? There was research showing that there are actually parasites present, that they actually are “zapped”, and that the “zapping” actually cures people of an actual parasite infestation? That is “research” other than just testimonials of non-experts in parasitology relating their “feelings” of being “cured”?
The only people still beating the dead horse of the “mercury causes autism” idea are those who are still profiting from it. People such as yourself who are selling “liquid zeolite”, people such as the Geiers who are “expert witnesses”, and people like Shoemaker who are getting legal fees.
There is still not a bit of data to support the “mercury causes autism” idea.
Chuck
Apr 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Daedalus2u,
Do you plan on selling and making money off of your OCD induced NO theory you keep pushing around the blogosphere?
Regan
Apr 21, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Do you plan on selling and making money off of your OCD induced NO theory you keep pushing around the blogosphere?
——————————————-
That’s funny.
If you call someone a “r_t_rd” that is an ad hominem, but apparently the other DSM-IV conditions are okay to fling around.
Or was that a diagnosis?
—————————————–
From the original post.
“…Scientists were quick to caution about the uncertainty of an autism/air pollutant link and noted that more evidence is needed…”
Now that’s the part that’s annoying. If they have to be “quick to caution”, and note “that more evidence is needed”, would there be something remiss in hanging on to the issuance of the press release until the needed additional evidence is available? The restrained verbiage of science which deals with probabilities and ranges of uncertainties sometimes doesn’t translate well into popular accounts, and sometimes when the additional evidence comes in the effect was not as large as originally stated or turns out to be due to some other factor, or may not even have been designed well in the first place. But by then the original report has entered the common argot.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Apr 21, 2008 at 5:25 pm
@Joseph, yes, an old post—am interested in your point about “children who come from areas with higher urbanicity” having higher rates of autism diagnosis: Because of greater access to medical/developmental specialists and other services……
Chuck
Apr 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Regan,
Autism is a DSM-IV condition, is it an ad hominem attack?
Regan
Apr 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If used to suggest an insult, such as OCD induced.
Chuck
Apr 21, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Ad hominem statements are by definition aimed at the person, not the idea. It is just a matter of relativism to determine what a statement suggests to different individuals.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: