• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Potential link between autism and vehicle pollution

The article doesn't mention any correcting for socio-economic factors.

My assumption would be that the higher economic classes live further from the freeways.
 
How come this didn't happen in the past? Cars used to produce more pollution in that time?
 
From the link:

A team of investigators behind the study said Friday this is the first to establish a link between autism risk and exposure to vehicle emissions.
Click to expand...

BUT:

Researchers didn't measure the amount of pollution exposure.
Click to expand...
 
Everybody, repeat after me:

"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
"Correlation does not imply causation."
 
ria_rokz said:
A new study has shown that pregnant women who lived 309 metres or less from a freeway were twice as likely to have a child with autism.

Anti-vaxxers take note! Move far (far far far far far far) from the freeway, give away your cars, and go live in the bush to avoid the pollution.
Click to expand...

I think the main issue is going to be wether there were demographic controls and teh actual size effect compared to the population sampled.

Now they do mention a possible causation link and they are looking at where the mother lived during the three trimesters, so all good investigative clues.

Now there is a warning sign here!

"An analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection revealed an alarming statistic -- autism cases jumped 57 per cent between 2002 and 2006.

Volk and her colleagues believe the sharp increase cannot be attributed alone to improved diagnosis and the public's increased awareness. "

Same stroy different source:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/air-pollution-freeways-may-increase-autism-risk

"But the research is still preliminary. “This study isn’t saying exposure to air pollution or exposure to traffic causes autism,” says Dr. Volk."

And here is teh actual article!
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...E690D?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1002835

...
Methods: Data were from 304 autism cases and 259 typically developing controls enrolled in the Childhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment (CHARGE) Study.

...
Results: Adjusting for sociodemographic factors and maternal smoking, maternal residence at the time of delivery was more likely be near a freeway (≤309 meters) for cases, as compared to controls (odds ratio (OR), 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-3.45). Autism was also associated with residential proximity to a freeway during the third trimester (OR, 2.22, CI, 1.16-4.42). After adjustment for socio-economic and demographic characteristics, these associations were unchanged. Living near other major roads at birth was not associated with autism.
Click to expand...


Interesting, that other major roadways need not apply.

Very small sample size as well, could be just a sample issue as well.
 
This report exemplifies very well that correlation does not mean causation. It shows that there is a very strong correlation with phone masts and birth rates which clearly can't be connected and other factors have to be considered.
 
Last edited:
The initial study that showed the supposed "link" between vaccines and autism was at least as flawed as this one, and Wakefield never actually said there wasn't a link between the two. So, anyone who believed that link should be just as likely to jump on this bandwagon, yes?
 
Dancing David said:
I think the main issue is going to be wether there were demographic controls and teh actual size effect compared to the population sampled.

Now they do mention a possible causation link and they are looking at where the mother lived during the three trimesters, so all good investigative clues.

Now there is a warning sign here!

"An analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Protection revealed an alarming statistic -- autism cases jumped 57 per cent between 2002 and 2006.

Volk and her colleagues believe the sharp increase cannot be attributed alone to improved diagnosis and the public's increased awareness. "

Same stroy different source:
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1506/air-pollution-freeways-may-increase-autism-risk

"But the research is still preliminary. “This study isn’t saying exposure to air pollution or exposure to traffic causes autism,” says Dr. Volk."

And here is teh actual article!
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/...E690D?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1002835




Interesting, that other major roadways need not apply.

Very small sample size as well, could be just a sample issue as well.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's interesting that it only applies to freeways. I am also glad that Dr. Volk actually said that the study does not show causation.
 
To all posters, I just want to make it clear that I was NOT implying that the study showed causation, and if I worded the OP in such a way that it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for the confusion. If other people want to assume that pollution+pregnancy=autism, well... that's their choice... I guess...
 
ria_rokz said:
To all posters, I just want to make it clear that I was NOT implying that the study showed causation, and if I worded the OP in such a way that it was misinterpreted, I am sorry for the confusion. If other people want to assume that pollution+pregnancy=autism, well... that's their choice... I guess...
Click to expand...

You didn't. And neither did I. ;)
 
casebro said:
The article doesn't mention any correcting for socio-economic factors.

My assumption would be that the higher economic classes live further from the freeways.
Click to expand...

People in rural areas also live farther from highways than people in urban or suburban areas, and obviously there are more factors than vehicle exhaust in play there.
 
casebro said:
The article doesn't mention any correcting for socio-economic factors.

My assumption would be that the higher economic classes live further from the freeways.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, although reading the article linked by Dancing David says that "After adjustment for socio-economic and demographic characteristics, these associations were unchanged".
 
brenn said:
People in rural areas also live farther from highways than people in urban or suburban areas, and obviously there are more factors than vehicle exhaust in play there.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I can think of many factors that are correlated with living near a highway other than the two they apparently controlled for (sociodemographic factors and maternal smoking).

If they think it might be air pollution, they should simply measure air quality and see if it correlates with autism. If so, that probably explains this result. If not, this result becomes close to useless (unless there's some other theory they derived from it they can test).

Generally speaking it doesn't do any good to go around checking for correlations between every random pair of variables you can think of. You need a theory, otherwise such data are often worse than useless (because they lead to unwarranted and wrong conclusions that slow progress).

But I'll confess, I haven't read the (original) article...
 
Last edited:
Just wondering, what is the average socio-economic status of people living near one of these freeways? I thought one of the articles said it was in San Francisco. I don't think I've ever even been on a freeway, never mind living near one. I kind of live in BFN. Most of the major roadways I have seen when I go to the city don't have any residences near them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom