The study concluded the following - 'These results are consistent with the existenceof an environmental trigger for autism among genetically vulnerablechildren that is positively associated with precipitation. Furtherstudies focused on establishing whether such a trigger existsand identifying the specific trigger are warranted.' Autism Prevalence and Precipitation Rates in California, Oregon, and Washington Counties
Michael Waldman, PhD; Sean Nicholson, PhD; Nodir Adilov, PhD; John Williams, MD, MBA
So somehow the BBC picked up this 'science' story which is so, so, so dumb the man/woman who considered it news worthy should cut their own head off to prevent themselves publishing further drivel.
Now I understand that the article does indeed state that experts in the UK consider this study to be as much use as a solar powered torch. However, this is just the sort of garbage science reporting that can misinform and confuse a proportion of the country who are not scientifically literate.
Note the headline - Rainfall autism theory suggested
That is as far as some people will read.
Really the headline should read something like - Rainfall autism link completely dumb.
Autism is one condition that is poorly understood by the public. All the evidence points towards autism being a genetic condition. More and more children are being diagnosed with autism. It was highlighted as a condition commonly misdiagnosed and techniques were improved.
So 100's upon 1000's of quacks, playmates of the year (Jenny McCarthy - she's a proponent of the notion that child vaccinations cause autism. For the record that is pseudo-scientific bullshit and nothing but) and lazy doctors try to find a link between autism and absolutely anything. Recent 'links' have been made between autism and cell phone useage, electric pylons, heavy metals like mercury, older fathers and early television useage. That is a whole lot of weird unrelated stuff. Time to add something else to the list then.
The article claims that scientists (who have been published in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine)have concluded that 'increased rainfall, or something linked to it, may be connected to the development of autism'. It then explains that it might be chemicals related to the rainfall and/or the rain itself that is striking down children with autism.........Then what? How? Why? Evidence? Got any? They haven't got any, they just looked at some statistics and the rain....................................
This is a not scientific investigation. It's confusing association with causation. So for instance I could state that because it is known Artic icesheets are retreating, and more celebrities are joining the anti-vaccine movement. That Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy could be responsible for retreating ice sheets. Then I don't have to print any evidence as to how, and my work gets published? I'll read the paper.
Please be sceptical when reading science stories. These are the sorts of stories that sell papers unfortunately. The sensationalist, dumb ones. The ones that gutter press print week after week about a particular sort of bread causing throat cancer one week then reducing bowel cancer the next. It's rubbish.
Thank god for that. I just heard John McCain thank Sarah Palin for being "one of the most effective campaigners I have ever seen."
I think this means that Americans have voted for the right person, because if they'd elected McCain they would have clearly elected a liar. Joking aside, he was very honourable in his 'I just got served' speech and would have been a better president than Bush was. It was a landslide and I'm sort of glad I stayed up to watch it.
Everyone has to have an opinion on this one. Most people are familiar with the phrase - 'everytime America sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold'. This is why you should have an opinion. You may be currently hearing the words 'credit' and 'crunch' practically everytime you turn on the news. This was an American sneeze that has certainly given my country of residence (UK) a pretty snotty nose, sore throat and a headache. In the case of Iceland it appears to have given them full blown pneumonia and completely destroyed their banking system. So start following American politics, get some American friends and get them to vote for the right guy, whoever you think that is.
The last Republican president has the following as his legacy - The Iraq War (dumb), a global economic crisis (ok, debatable whether he was solely responsible but I'll tell you this much....he's been president for the last 8 years), global warming denial (and I quote, "the jury's out on the causes of global warming"), a real dodgy election (nice work Jeb and Katherine you crafty dogs) and a complete lack of knowledge of the rest of the world (this knowledge was not improved upon even during his 8 year stint, I quote again, he actually send this to the Brazillian president Fernando Cardoso - "Do you have blacks too?"). If you think Bush is a great president then you clearly have not served in Iraq, were not in New Orleans when Katrina paid a visit and you clearly have never heard him open his mouth and speak.
This article is not about Bush though. It's about the new candidates, namely John 'Maverick' McCain and Barack 'Change' Obama. It's also about the American public and how I think they will react on later on today.
Let's get started with the veteran with the creepy smile and the Bush-esque, fruit fly research hating running mate who puts the Alas back into Alaska, Sarah 'I'll get back to ya' Palin.
Apparently McCain is a maverick because he has been known to disagree with party policy. This is not really a selling point. Just because you disagree with the party line occasionally does not make you a maverick, it just means that your opinion differs from others occasionally. Under this rationale everyone in the world is a maverick because we will never, ever all agree. It's like that Chris Rock sketch where he talks about people taking credit for things they are supposed to do.
McCain - 'I sometimes disagree with the party line.' Chris Rock - 'You're supposed to!'
McCain's military experience is a plus point, but as commander in chief I don't think we can use this experience to judge how good he will be in this role. Bush had very little experience, he did not listen to his generals, but he did listen to a former board member of Kelloggs (Rumsfeld) who quite quickly pushed him up an Iraqi shit-creek and denied him a paddle. I think McCain will fare better than Bush but his party is awful hawkish and I fear he will be pushed around by politicians rather than generals. McCain was tortured in Vietnam as a POW but voted to continue waterboarding, this is disgusting and is a blot on his record. McCain had previously voted to improve conditions for prisoners (not POWs, just prisoners) at Guantamano but doesn't think that simulated drowning is that bad. Hmmmmm. He wants victory in Iraq, unfortunately I have not heard him define how he will achieve victory. God help him if he has to face war widows whilst he's shouting out 'We Won!!!' He wants Bin Laden and says 'I'll get him!', again............how exactly?
McCain and Palin seem to not care about the environment and science in general. Anyone who has not heard Sarah Palin's attempts to enter scientific debate should watch this
If you care about science (and you should since without it we'd all die) you will have probably slapped your forehead by now. This was a galactically stupid comment from an inexplicably stupid lady. McCain must have a lot in common with this woman because they are campaigning together. Science and the environment are commonly overlooked issues in politics and the McCain/Palin stance is very worrying. Bush said some very, very stupid things about the environment and McCain/Palin are not calming the fears of rational people who know better.
The economy is the last bit I'll cover. McCain's policies do not favour the vast majority of the population of America. His policies favour making the very rich, much, much richer. He wants to make Bush's tax cuts permanent, decrease corporation tax and reduce the growth of Medicare so insurance companies can carry on denying health care to the poor. These policies would not stick in my country. It is the government's duty to help those that need help the most, whilst I'm sure John McCain has a barely beating heart in his chest, his policies do seem skewed towards those that need the least help. Bush tried to make the rich richer and then approved an enormous loan from the federal government to prevent banks from imploding with the force of 17 black holes at the end of his tenure. McCain appears to have an even more conservative approach to economic policy. However, he has made hints that lucrative serverance packages and monstrous wages paid to CEOs will be curbed. I commend him for that, these huge bonuses to seem to have contributed to the global economic crisis and the banks agree.
This is Barack Obama, if this picture is anything to go by he will kick your ass if you don't vote for him. Barack has used the word 'change' an awful lot recently. He has changed politics in America for good by being the very first African-American to run for precidency. Seeing as 50 years ago America was still segregated, this is a testament to him. I didn't think I would see this happening in the US for a while yet and I'm really chuffed it's happened now. But what about the man himself, I'll be honest, alot of what I have heard at his rallies has been pretty rhetorical. He has been whipping up fervour rather than concentrating on policies. He has repeated the slightly ambiguous word change an awful lot. This is American politics however, it's more about the person than the policies. Change is important right now in American politics. America needs to start making more friends.
I personally would have put in a 3 year old child in the Oval Office instead of Bush, at least we would never have gotten into Iraq with a 3 year old president. Joking aside I will run down the same issues I discussed on my McCain section.
Like most politicians Barack has no military experience, like McCain, Obama has travelled the world and appears to be intelligent. Barack wants troops out of Iraq, I believe he talks of phased re-deployment, note he does not mention victory. Barack opposed the war from its outset, I don't think 'complete and total victory' is possible in Iraq. Just the same way the British Army will never achieve 'victory' in Northern Ireland. If Obama uses diplomacy adequately in Iraq he could end this ongoing war and eventually improve the standard of living in Iraq which is the only reason there is still violence there. If people feel safe and secure in Iraq then the violence will cease. I experienced Northern Ireland during the troubles and can tell you that you do not feel safe when lots of soldiers are walking around pointing guns at you. However, once dialogue was opened with the very people a conservative government swore never to talk to, peace came, soldiers started leaving, the standard of living increased and the violence ceased to the point where there are very few sectarian paramilitary groups left in Northern Ireland. Barack appears to want to take this route and I believe it is the right one.
Barack actually knows something about environmental issues and has campaigned very hard on environmental and scientific issues like recycling in Harlem and regulating emissions from coal fired power stations. This stands in stark contrast with the McCain/Palin ticket who seem absolutely clueless and want money diverted from research that they are just completely ignorant to. I really don't have to expend much time on this issue, it isn't an issue for the Republicans but the Democrats take this issue seriously. If McCain saw it as a national security issue he might do something about it. Obama on the other hand knows that the environment is a national security issue.
Barack's economic policy also stands in stark contrast to McCain's in fact it's the complete opposite with tax cuts for the rich being scrapped and policies that reflect the FDR New Deal social welfare policies. Something that McCain wants to put into a private fund (so people can make money from poor people). Obama's policies favour the majority of American's and he wants to remove the class divisions present in America that were so apparent during Hurricane Katrina when poor people were left to die while the president went to McCain's birthday party.
So who will the American public vote for? The polls claim that Obama is ahead on nearly all fronts. All the issues, all the key states. American people generally don't vote for the statesman they vote for the actor, the guy who stands a better chance of being in a Hollywood movie. Just look at the last election, Kerry was clearly the better politician but instead they voted for the warmongering, apparently down to earth rich boy. I know so many Americans who voted Bush in for a second term but now can't believe they did it. The American media does a great job at painting a picture of politicians that is not neccesarily the truth. American news stations actually pick a candidate and support them. This does not happen in the UK where news stations are completely impartial. I mean if Obama wins, I seriously believe that Fox News won't announce the results until about 4 hours after everyone else. Ever since I can remember, the person voted in as US president is the most charismatic and photogenic. Luckily the guy who fits that bill THIS time, appears to be the right guy for the job.
I won't name him, work it out for yourself.
This took sooo long to write, it's 4am now, jeez. Well done if you read the whole thing, reward yourself.
