Study Links Exposure to Common Pesticide With ADHD in Boys

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.cincinnatichildrens.org/news/release/2015/study-links-pesticide-ADHD-in-boys-06-01-2015/

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Study Links Exposure to Common Pesticide With ADHD in Boys[/font]
Monday, June 01, 2015

[font size=3]A new study links a commonly used household pesticide with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and young teens.

…

The study, led by researchers at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, is published online in the journal Environmental Health.

“Given the growing use of pyrethroid pesticides and the perception that they may represent a safe alternative, our findings may be of considerable public health importance,” says Tanya Froehlich, MD, a developmental pediatrician at Cincinnati Children’s and the study’s corresponding author.

…

Boys with detectable urinary 3-PBA, a biomarker of exposure to pyrethroids, were three times as likely to have ADHD compared with those without detectable 3-PBA. Hyperactivity and impulsivity increased by 50 percent for every 10-fold increase in 3-PBA levels in boys. Biomarkers were not associated with increased odds of ADHD diagnosis or symptoms in girls.

…[/font][/font]

[villager]

1. Surely that kind of scientific study must be "woo" if it means less profits for Monsanto & their ilk

And if dares question any of the edicts coming out of their corporate PR offices!

[Silent3]

2. Not too many scientific studies are themselves "woo"...

...though that does happen.

"Woo" is more often in the cherry-picking of studies, and the exaggerated interpretation of studies of limited certainty and significance.

[villager]

3. Hence, "Corporate Woo."

[Silent3]

5. While one can certainly be gullible about corporate PR and media manipulation...

...I'm afraid that's not what "woo" means, no matter how much you'd like to turn it into a generic insult.

To the extent that "woo" has anything to do with corporations at all, it's in rejecting anything corporate to the polar opposite extreme -- any study that says a corporate product is bad must be the truth, the mere tip of the iceberg of the truth that we're "allowed" to see, anything that says a chemical product or industrial process is good or safe must be corrupt and unreliable, because we know that natural = good, artificial = bad, etc.

[villager]

6. Actually, "woo" has no innate meaning, except what is ascribed to it

It was used originally as a derisive term here in lieu of discussion, for those who have a Manichean view about science, and its utility (and often, abuse) in a corporate-owned world.

Thus, "woo" can equally be applied to those who take corporate pronouncements "on faith," as well.

Anyone is free to use it in their own contexts, in other words, no matter how much you'd like to keep it a proprietary insult.

[Silent3]

7. I'm hesitantly snow-covered about that.

Since we can all use chickens any trampoline we want.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."

http://www.fecundity.com/pmagnus/humpty.html

[villager]

11. Basically.

The wax waffles.

[OKIsItJustMe]

10. Woo

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo

[HuckleB]

8. An in-depth discussion of this at Healthy Skepticism.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/HealthySkepticism/permalink/1455759324723128/?hc_location=ufi

Good stuff.