iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Kids' Lower IQ Scores Linked To Prenatal Pollution

LINDSEY TANNER   07/20/09 11:53 AM ET   AP

Pollution

CHICAGO — Researchers for the first time have linked air pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood, bolstering evidence that smog may harm the developing brain.

The results are in a study of 249 children of New York City women who wore backpack air monitors for 48 hours during the last few months of pregnancy. They lived in mostly low-income neighborhoods in northern Manhattan and the South Bronx. They had varying levels of exposure to typical kinds of urban air pollution, mostly from car, bus and truck exhaust.

At age 5, before starting school, the children were given IQ tests. Those exposed to the most pollution before birth scored on average four to five points lower than children with less exposure.

That's a big enough difference that it could affect children's performance in school, said Frederica Perera, the study's lead author and director of the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health.

Dr. Michael Msall, a University of Chicago pediatrician not involved in the research, said the study doesn't mean that children living in congested cities "aren't going to learn to read and write and spell."

But it does suggest that you don't have to live right next door to a belching factory to face pollution health risks, and that there may be more dangers from typical urban air pollution than previously thought, he said.

"We are learning more and more about low-dose exposure and how things we take for granted may not be a free ride," he said.

While future research is needed to confirm the new results, the findings suggest exposure to air pollution before birth could have the same harmful effects on the developing brain as exposure to lead, said Patrick Breysse, an environmental health specialist at Johns Hopkins' school of public health.

And along with other environmental harms and disadvantages low-income children are exposed to, it could help explain why they often do worse academically than children from wealthier families, Breysse said.

"It's a profound observation," he said. "This paper is going to open a lot of eyes."

The study in the August edition of Pediatrics was released Monday.

In earlier research, involving some of the same children and others, Perera linked prenatal exposure to air pollution with genetic abnormalities at birth that could increase risks for cancer; smaller newborn head size and reduced birth weight. Her research team also has linked it with developmental delays at age 3 and with children's asthma.

The researchers studied pollutants that can cross the placenta and are known scientifically as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Main sources include vehicle exhaust and factory emissions. Tobacco smoke is another source, but mothers in the study were nonsmokers.

A total of 140 study children, 56 percent, were in the high exposure group. That means their mothers likely lived close to heavily congested streets, bus depots and other typical sources of city air pollution; the researchers are still examining data to confirm that, Perera said. The mothers were black or Dominican-American; the results likely apply to other groups, researchers said.

The researchers took into account other factors that could influence IQ, including secondhand smoke exposure, the home learning environment and air pollution exposure after birth, and still found a strong influence from prenatal exposure, Perera said.

Dr. Robert Geller, an Emory University pediatrician and toxicologist, said the study can't completely rule out that pollution exposure during early childhood might have contributed. He also noted fewer mothers in the high exposure group had graduated from high school. While that might also have contributed to the high-dose children's lower IQ scores, the study still provides compelling evidence implicating prenatal pollution exposure that should prompt additional studies, Geller said.

The researchers said they plan to continuing monitoring and testing the children to learn whether school performance is affected and if there are any additional long-term effects.

___

On the Net:

Pediatrics: http://www.pediatrics.org

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

CHICAGO — Researchers for the first time have linked air pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood, bolstering evidence that smog may harm the developing brain. The resu...
CHICAGO — Researchers for the first time have linked air pollution exposure before birth with lower IQ scores in childhood, bolstering evidence that smog may harm the developing brain. The resu...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 31
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
08:02 AM on 07/22/2009
and, sadly, it's no accident: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15280.htm
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:15 AM on 07/20/2009
It would be interesting to see how they correct for other factors, aside from the pre-birth air pollution. What about the air pollution experienced post-birth?
09:24 AM on 07/20/2009
The results are in a study of 249 children of New York City women who wore backpack air monitors for 48 hours during the last few months of pregnancy. This barely rises to the level of coincidence. Junk science.
10:14 AM on 07/20/2009
Suuuure.
09:11 AM on 07/20/2009
Frustrating-- volume? Issue? Pg? Author?

I have access to this journal but don't see this article.
photo
constitutional 1
Reductio ad absurdum
09:04 AM on 07/20/2009
The findings suggest there were unaccounted for variables that such a small sample group could not possibly answer. Polictially motivated research is not science.
photo
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
08:52 AM on 07/20/2009
Gee, filtering our industrial waste through the lungs of poor people turns out to be a bad idea with expensive and long term side effects.

Who could have seen that coming?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
RedSoxGator
08:42 AM on 07/20/2009
So, I guess people born many years ago when there was no pollution were smarter than those born in the past 30-40 years. Works for me.
08:33 AM on 07/20/2009
Junk science. But with a scientifically and mathematically ignorant public and press and also politicized press this will be widely accepted.
09:06 AM on 07/20/2009
Nope, the effects of teratogens has been pretty well known for a while; this is just a different delivery system for them.
08:23 AM on 07/20/2009
"And along with other environmental harms and disadvantages low-income children are exposed to, it could help explain why they often do worse academically than children from wealthier families"

....Brilliant. It must be the air.....
07:45 AM on 07/20/2009
That makes sense as the rust belt and polluted areas of the US vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nubret2008
08:17 AM on 07/20/2009
I had the same explanation for the South - different party of course
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
blackfriday1978
08:57 AM on 07/20/2009
the fact often was those who vote against Democrats deny pollution, ignore all social costs related with economic development. So, which polluted area you are from?
photo
brooklyncitizen
Soror quaerens lucem
06:38 AM on 07/20/2009
That girls looks like a teen mother...the women studied lived in poor areas- upper Manhattan probably Wahsington hts. and the South Bronx....not sure how pollution can be the definitive factor when so many other things are not optimum.

So how does that explain all the rednecks ?
06:27 AM on 07/20/2009
It's weird that the dum.best fu**ing people in this country live in rural areas...
photo
brooklyncitizen
Soror quaerens lucem
06:35 AM on 07/20/2009
LOL
guess too much fresh air can work against you too.
09:04 AM on 07/20/2009
Yeah, except you're wrong about that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
06:16 AM on 07/20/2009
"study tracking urban air pollution's affect on the developing brain"

learn the difference between "affect" and "effect"!
02:46 AM on 07/20/2009
So..... they conducted a survey of mothers with low income and education and found that their kids have an IQ that is 4-5 points lower than normal. It is surprising that the difference is so small.

It is highly unscientific to conclude that the difference is because of air pollution when there are so many other compelling explanations available.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:16 AM on 07/20/2009
"The researchers took into account other factors that could influence IQ, including secondhand smoke exposure, the home learning environment and air pollution exposure after birth, and still found a strong influence from prenatal exposure, Perera said."
02:31 AM on 07/22/2009
What about parental IQ ? IQ is highly heritable.

'The home learning environment' doesn't matter as much as whether daddy and mommy went to college or not (even if the child has never met its biological parents)

One is nurture, the other is nature. People who believe that nature doesn't matter don't deserve to be taken seriously.
02:51 AM on 07/22/2009
I can cherry pick a sample to show that air pollution leads to higher IQ.

Simple. Pick 100 people living in Podunk town, Georgia and 100 people living in some posh upper class area in Shanghai. Obviously, the pollution level in Alabama is way lower than anywhere Shanghai but rich people in Shanghai will have higher IQ levels.
09:03 AM on 07/20/2009
In a large population, that is a very large difference. Yeah, between individuals, that's not a significant difference. Between populations, however, that is quite significant.
02:35 AM on 07/20/2009
While these effects are almost-definitely valid, there is another angle that likely contributes to the findings: food. People in a similar financial situations to the ones studied also display a noticeable trend towards poorer eating. They often live off of the dollar menu at a fast food restaurant and suffer because of it, pregnant or otherwise. Given the relationship between nutriiton and the development of a child, I would really like to see further study of this point to augment the findings here.

The larger issue it raises is the predestination of certain children born into poverty. It's worth it to keep these studies in mind, because whenever we study urban blight, crime and other poverty-related issues, this data has a way of getting lost. The result of this amnesia is usually a fool's version of determinism that really keeps anything from changing. Once again it's science versus the old religious blame game.