Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Altitude and child development

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Altitude and child development

#31

Post by meheleventyone »

ineptech wrote: post #30
the_af wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or at least: someone writing in Lesswrong, a not particularly reliable site (to put it mildly, but I don't want to get into an argument about it), claims this.

It was extensively cited, and written by a professional researcher using their real name who has no particular axe to grind - what more could you possibly ask for?

Maybe I’m just bad at their site but I can’t see any name other than Elizabeth, I can’t see their professional credentials nor does it seem likely that a couple of hours work looking into something that at best produces a tiny effect is sufficient to establish a good meta-review of the relevant literature. For example there’s no real attempt to gauge the quality of the papers cited. Reading the report makes me suspect the author is less than convinced.

From passing familiarity and a bit of a browse around LessWrong is a great place for pretentious airs, florid prose and lengthy posts but none of that makes things inherently more accurate. And for this kind of reporting accuracy of the result is pretty important.

Re: Altitude and child development

#32

Post by nxpnsv »

vailprogrammer wrote: post #28
woeirua wrote: post #18

Meanwhile Colorado is in the top 5 states for educational attainment, and the fittest state in the Union (for many years now). It's interesting that altitude has a noticeable effect on birth weight, but it clearly doesn't really affect the outcome a whole lot.

More than half the population of CO was born outside of the state. I would be surprised if it was still a top 5 state for educational attainment when looking only at those born and raised in the state.

I think healthy parents tend to have healthy kids though.

Re: Altitude and child development

#33

Post by tricolon »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #23
sundvor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous studies on the myriad bad health effects of PM2.5. The sooner we can transition to EVs, the better.

What's the PM2.5 contribution of automobile exhaust in a city like Denver, 5-10%ish?

I haven't found exact data for the contribution of ICE vehicles to PM 2.5 levels in Denver, but I've found some evidence of ozone [0] and carbon dioxide [1] contributions in Denver being around 30%, as well as contribution to PM 2.5 in "developed countries" being 25–30% [2].

Later edit: this EPA paper from 25 years ago [3] says "Vehicle exhaust was the largest PM 2.5 carbon contributor, constituting ~85% of PM 2.5 carbon at sites in the Denver metropolitan area".

[0] https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2017/10/30/here-are-...

[1] https://www.denverpost.com/2020/01/19/colorado-air-pollution...

[2] https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/37...

[3] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/nf...

Re: Altitude and child development

#35

Post by afarrell »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #23
sundvor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous studies on the myriad bad health effects of PM2.5. The sooner we can transition to EVs, the better.

What's the PM2.5 contribution of automobile exhaust in a city like Denver, 5-10%ish?

I wonder how much brake pads dust also contributes to PM2.5 and how much regenerative braking will decrease that effect.

Re: Altitude and child development

#37

Post by mjlee »

jbandela1 wrote: post #16

Based on what I learned in medical school, my guess would be iodine deficiency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_iodine_deficiency_s... Iodine is vitally important for child development, especially brain development. In mountainous regions, there can be less iodine in the soil (and you are away from the ocean where fish and other seafood are a ready source of iodine). IIRC, it used to be a big issue in the Al…

Well, I just learned where the insult "cretin" (idiot, at least in British English) comes from!

Re: Altitude and child development

#38

Post by op00to »

taneq wrote: post #12
nojs wrote: post #3

High altitude climbing is also known to cause brain changes detectable on MRI. See e.g. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ham.2011.1073

Didn't one study use FMRI to detect neurological changes in response to various types of music (or something like that) in dead fish?

It is possible to misuse any technology to lie or tell a story other than the truth. I worked in a pioneering fMRI lab back in the early 00s, and even then we were very clearly stating the limitations of the technology. It’s popular media that is uncomfortable with ambiguity that place unrealistic and magical powers of observation on fMRI.

Re: Altitude and child development

#39

Post by 7952 »

tricolon wrote: post #33
throwawaylinux wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the PM2.5 contribution of automobile exhaust in a city like Denver, 5-10%ish?

I haven't found exact data for the contribution of ICE vehicles to PM 2.5 levels in Denver, but I've found some evidence of ozone [0] and carbon dioxide [1] contributions in Denver being around 30%, as well as contribution to PM 2.5 in "developed countries" being 25–30% [2]. Later edit: this EPA paper from 25 years ago [3] says "Vehicle exhaust was the largest PM 2.5 carbon contributor, constituting ~85% of PM 2.5 ca…

Also, the location of the pollution matters. The same pollutant can cause more problems released at ground level than from a stack.

Re: Altitude and child development

#40

Post by sundvor »

7952 wrote: post #39
tricolon wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't found exact data for the contribution of ICE vehicles to PM 2.5 levels in Denver, but I've found some evidence of ozone [0] and carbon dioxide [1] contributions in Denver being around 30%, as well as contribution to PM 2.5 in "developed countries" being 25–30% [2]. Later edit: this EPA paper from 25 years ago [3] says "Vehicle exhaust was the largest PM 2.5 carbon contributor, constituting ~85% of PM 2.5 ca…

Also, the location of the pollution matters. The same pollutant can cause more problems released at ground level than from a stack.

Yes, I researched this for evaluating my son's previous school - there's a sharp drop off even from the 10-20-30 metre range to the 100-150 metre one, and things like wind directions certainly matter.

AusGov in their infinite wisdom built this primary school right on top of one of the busiest Melbourne streets for east-west through traffic, with long periods of bumper-to-bumper including the heavy trucks which are the worst. (You'd think cars in Aus have bad standards, but then there's the trucks.)

I'm willing to bet no-one even cared, as evidenced by the complete lack of air purifiers in the classrooms.

Post reply on HN