Tests Find More Than 200 Chemicals in Newborn Umbilical Cord Blood

[HAL 9000 96]

Its amazing how many hal scientists there are around these parts.

Wouldn't that be great.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You quote something that the 2009 report inferred to explain why minority babies have greater toxin exposure. But since they fail to provide data that indicates that minorities actually have higher toxin exposure, an explanation as to why that is the case is a little out of place.

Fact of the matter is, good science would have required taking samples from all groups that you wanted to compare. Even if previous studies exist, taking new data would rule out any differences that could be caused by differing data taking methods or increasing toxicity at large.

The study took samples from hispanics, blacks, and asians yet makes no attempt to compare results between the groups. Instead it tries to compare them with a group that wasn't tested. It's like measuring water temperatures in lake A and saying that it is colder than lake B without measuring lake B. Even if you have data from the past for lake B, good science would require you to take new data for lake B, since the temperature of lake B might have changed and the people who studied lake B previously may have measured temperature differently.

If the previous study showed toxins present at a certain level and this study which tested minority babies shows significantly higher levels, the preliminary comparison is reasonably logical.

I would agree though, that if these toxins are environmentally introduced to the babies, that they would only test babies within a specific location. In any case, these findings are alarming and should spark interest in reducing the exposure to such toxins from industry.

[HAL 9000 96]

Papers frequently refer to data in previous literature not in detail- as people have the ability to find this data on their own, particularly when published.

Example-

'The 2009 levels found concentrated within XYZ infants aged 00-00 months of age were significantly higher than those previously reported in the literature for all levels of the population/at locations known to have insignificant exposure levels.'

Steven... the problem with testing unique geographical locations as it pertains to this research is that the authors are obviously implying a socioeconomical disparity that factors in to exposure perhaps more so than actual environmental exposure itself. Of course, one could control for that in order to more clearly tease out the differences in exposure method.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Papers frequently refer to data in previous literature not in detail- as people have the ability to find this data on their own, particularly when published.

Example-

'The 2009 levels found concentrated within XYZ infants aged 00-00 months of age were significantly higher than those previously reported in the literature for all levels of the population/at locations known to have insignificant exposure levels.'

Steven... the problem with testing unique geographical locations as it pertains to this research is that the authors are obviously implying a socioeconomical disparity that factors in to exposure perhaps more so than actual environmental exposure itself. Of course, one could control for that in order to more clearly tease out the differences in exposure method.

That makes sense.