What’s behind the rise in ADHD?

Now a new study published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, links pesticide use with the rise in ADHD disorders among children. The study's authors examined data on over 1,100 children, and determined that elevated levels of pesticide metabolites in the urine was associated with a diagnosis of ADHD. In fact, children with levels higher than the median of the most commonly detected metabolite (known as dimethyl thiophosphate), were twice as likely to be diagnosed as ADHD compared with children that had undetectable levels of the metabolite. The elevated risk factor remained even after controlling for confounding variables like gender, age, race/ethnicity, poverty/income ratio and others. The pesticides studied belong to a class of compounds known as organophosphates. Time explains:

[Study author Maryse] Bouchard's analysis is the first to home in on organophosphate pesticides as a potential contributor to ADHD in young children. But the author stresses that her study uncovers only an association, not a direct causal link between pesticide exposure and the developmental condition. There is evidence, however, that the mechanism of the link may be worth studying further: organophosphates are known to cause damage to the nerve connections in the brain — that's how they kill agricultural pests, after all. The chemical works by disrupting a specific neurotransmitter, acetylcholinesterase, a defect that has been implicated in children diagnosed with ADHD. In animal models, exposure to the pesticides has resulted in hyperactivity and cognitive deficits as well.

Continue ReadingWhat’s behind the rise in ADHD?

Diluting the Internet

My pet peeve today is Answers.com, which runs "WikiAnswers" (I refuse to link to these sites). They are apparently run by marketing geniuses who founded these deplorable companies thanks to the ability to have their vapid link-less "answers" appear high up on Google searches. I have learned my lesson, though--no more will I follow a Google page to these sites. They have quite clearly been created to gain market share by jamming key words into barely thought-out "answers." In short, the idea is to pump the sites full of link-barren word-salad garbage authored by know-nothings purely for the purpose of selling ads. I base this opinion on reading dozens of such "articles," but no more. I'm finished with answers.com. I refuse to be one of the 54 million monthly visitors to these sites any more. Barely better is ehow.com, which has published one million articles. I've got to give a little bit of credit to ehow, however. At least you'll find at least ONE link in these barely helpful "articles." The end result is always the same, however. Thousands of ehow "articles" are dashed off in one sitting by non-experts who are whoring their writing skills so that ehow can gain market share for its buckets of ads--enough ads to take in $200,000,000 in revenue in 2009. Consider an example - do you think that this took more than five minutes to write? Do you think anyone reading this article didn't know how to shop at a grocery store, but now knows? Here is the inside scoop on ehow published by Time Magazine. In this article, we learn that the authors of ehow articles are paid between $3 - 15. And it shows. Don't trust me on this. Go take a look. By the way, the above article about ehow was written by a guy named "Dan Fletcher" who seems to crank out an endless stream of tiny articles for Time (plug his name into Time's search field and you'll see what I mean). It's quantity over quality for Dan, who sometimes writes 5-10 articles in one day for Time. I'm sure that he's thinking, "Well, it's a living." I know that the Internet doesn't belong to anyone in particular. People have the right to write anything they want and I have the right to try to not read articles that are created solely for the purpose of filling web pages with keywords that attract Google. More and more, however, serious sites are being shoved downwards on Google's results pages by keyword laden ad-machines that are portraying themselves to be journalistic endeavors, and it's a shame.

Continue ReadingDiluting the Internet

Overdosing on homeopathic drugs?

I recently ran across this 2009 article about a young woman who apparently tried to overdose on a homeopathic drug called "Traumeel." I'm not trying to make light of a sad situation, but only to use this example to illustrate the widespread ignorance regarding homeopathy. A good description of homeopathy was given by James Randi in his 2001 talk at Princeton: Note the math lesson beginning at the five minute mark. Homeopaths argue that the more dilute a solution is, the more powerful it is. At the 7:30 mark, Randi explains that a "30X" solution is so dilute that it reaches the "number of no return." "30X" is so dilute that it is the equivalent of placing 15 drops of water in a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Other homeopathic solutions are available in 1,500x solutions. How dilute is that? It's the equivalent of (12:00) smashing one grain of rice into a sphere of water the diameter of the solar system, shaking it up, and then further diluting that same solution 2 billion more times in an equivalent sized sphere. To bring the matter full circle, at the ten-minute Randi explains how he ate two entire packages of a popular homeopathic sleeping pill (sold at nationwide pharmacies) without overdosing. Believe it or not, the active ingredient was caffeine. At 13:30, Randi characterizes the people who sell these "medicines" "swindlers, liars, cheats, frauds, fakes, criminals." For more on homeopathy, now used by five million people world-wide, consider the many statistics in my earlier post and consider viewing this video by Richard Dawkins. At the 3-minute mark, Dawkins wryly notes that if water really had "memory" of the ingredients it formerly contained (as fans of homeopathy contend), what should we make of the fact that "in each glass of water we drink, at least one molecule has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell." At the 5-minute mark, when discussing whether homeopathy theory is plausible, the Director of a brand new English hospital (who actually was trained as a rheumatologist) unleashes this whopper of a quote: "The fact is that I couldn't stop what I do even if I wanted to. My patients wouldn't let me. They say it helps." BTW, check out the not-so-impressive medical research by the manufacturer of Traumeel. The manufacturer's recipe of a British narrator uttering big scientific words is featured in this video, and it is doubtless irresistible to many potential purchasers. Here's a bit of much needed skepticism regarding Traumeel. Whatever you do, don't utter the word "placebo" to anyone who pays big money for these "medicines."

Continue ReadingOverdosing on homeopathic drugs?

On the monogamy of birds

Birds are often reputed to be "monogamous." Is that true? At Salon, Jed Lipinski discussed the topic with Bernd Heinrich, a renowned naturalist at the University of Vermont, who has recently written "The Nesting Season: Cuckoos, Cuckolds, and the Invention of Monogamy." Here's an small excerpt from a larger discussion that touches upon monogamy, "love," navigation and other topics:

Monogamy among birds is mostly social monogamy, in that they will pair off, but they won’t necessarily be sexually monogamous. Some of them are, of course, but most try not to be, as there are certain advantages to being not monogamous. Monogamy is often forced upon birds because of certain conditions. Mates might be scarce, say, and it's safer to have a mate around. Or a female needs a mate to keep the offspring alive, to make sure all the courting and mating and nesting hasn’t been a big waste. It takes a lot of resources and help to raise baby birds -- so the parents have to have a lot of investment. Social monogamy works for food and protection, especially in the case of geese or birds of prey. So no, most birds are not monogamous. But monogamy is relative. It differs not only between species but within species as well, and often according to gender. Male birds of paradise are extremely promiscuous, whereas the females are extremely picky. They may only mate once in a breeding cycle, while a male will mate with hundreds of females and at any time. But then there are precocious birds, like ducks and quail, whose females manage to do all the feeding themselves, so a male isn't really required. . . . And some birds are not at all polyamorous. Ravens, for example, stay in pairs year round. That's unusual.

Continue ReadingOn the monogamy of birds