The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains | Hacker News Reader

The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains

theatlantic.com

31 pointskareemm16 comments

The thread built on a previous submission of this 18 March 2014 story to Hacker News, with lots of comments:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8158510

I remember reading this article back then, and I see this story has been submitted a couple of other times here. Rereading the article just now, I was astonished that the author doesn't mention any of the massive data sets that show that IQ scores have been steadily RISING around the world, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect,[1] after James R. Flynn, the researcher who first drew the attention of the psychological community to all the data on rising IQ scores around the world.[2] Really, if we are going to talk about mysterious effects of "toxins" here, we should first of all look at the actual trend lines in the real world.

[1] https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_why_our_iq_levels_are_...

[2] http://www.psychometrics.cam.ac.uk/about-us/directory/beyond...

Even if you are correct, that does not disprove a negative effect of "toxins" on IQ. Perhaps IQ would be rising at twice the current rate without those "toxins".

I think news like that is among the toxins that threaten my brain. A long as hell article, very little substance, no new insights, and designed to provoke certain emotions. How about solid data about the threat that I'm supposed to be facing all the time?

Well, if the dude is right, then under the current system I guess you won't find out which chemicals were the toxins for a few more decades.

It sounds like fear mongering, but the point about using a bunch of chemicals that are not really tested because they are presumed to be safe is a little suspicious. Might be worthwhile to actually run tests on these things and find out how bad they are before it makes a bunch of people's lives worse.

One thing the article is good at is pointing out that we have a history of using various chemicals without really understanding what the adverse health effects are.

If the dude in the bible is right then more than half of humanity goes to hell under the current system. Your point being...?

If you consider the recent popularity of lead (known to be dangerous for hundreds of years) and asbestos, you might not want to reconsider where the burden of proof should lie.

It would probably be a better idea to require that chemicals used around you be proven safe rather than proven dangerous.

The fMRI results shown come from a self-described pilot study with only 3 subjects per group [1] [2].

> Results must be interpreted with caution due to the small number of participants and a fixed-effects analysis. However, the results are intriguing and statistically significant despite the small group size. They suggest that further fMRI investigations of children exposed to MeHg and PCBs are warranted and that this technique deserves to be used in neurotoxicity studies in general.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2011.04.001 (the study)

[2] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S147 4-4422(13)70278-3 (a review containing a revised image based on that study -- the one that is included in the Atlantic piece)

I can't believe this guy has the title of MD and has the gall to make the claim that "the brain does not grow new brain cells throughout your life". Absolutely ridiculous. source:http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-bin/hopes_test/neuro...

Does anyone else recoil when they read the work "toxins" as it pertains to our health? The word has been so overused as to have lost its meaning.

Not just overused but essentially coopted by pseudoscience.

How insane is it that they are still allowed to use asbestos in things that are released in the consumer market? No one wants to live in a litigious society, but these companies will not stop doing this until their billion-dollar profits are punished with billion-dollar verdicts.

Rule of thumb: if anyone says "toxins", they're peddling anti-scientific nonsense.

Interesting rule of thumb! Maybe the authors responsible for that ton of peer-reviewed literature I've just been browsing through - with 'toxins' in the title, should take note.

Is ADHD actually a neurodegenerative disorder, or is it a natural human variation? How do we know that ADHD hasn't always been a substantial portion of the population, and we've only recognized it once we developed modern civilization post-agrarian revolution where kids need to sit in classrooms for 6 hours a day and homework for 1-2 hrs a day. Or that mind numbing repetitive jobs were not something hunter-gathers evolved for?

I'd believe that these chemicals may be causing brain changes, but I am highly skeptical of the claims there's been massive increase in autism and ADHD.

Would a hunter-gatherer or nomadic society even recognize ADHD as abnormal? Or high functioning autism for that matter?

Mercury in the environment? Students of biochemistry know very well the adverse effects of mercury ions on metabolic processes particularly in the brain. Thus permanently installing lumps of mercury amalgam an inch or two from said brain does not appear to be an entirely sensible procedure irrespective of whether epidemiological studies have, so far, reported adverse effects.

Meanwhile cremation releases 2 to 4 grams of mercury per body resulting in the release of at least 3,000 kgm of Hg vapour in the US alone.

And yet the ADA, increasingly alone in the world, still supports its use in dentistry. Incredible!

It's interesting that "attention [span|problem]" shows up 3 times and "adhd" shows up 5 times in this article. People seem to blame doctors for "over" prescribing ADHD medication, but perhaps its recent toxins.

It's also sad that many of the murders and rapes of the 70s, 80s, and 90s might be attributed to leaded gasoline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com