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

'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

philly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 265 posts

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#71

Post by pdonis »

rayiner wrote: post #27
calibraxis wrote: post #11

Science vs. hysterical racism, yet again. There's a reason it's "crack baby", and not "cocaine baby". Helps imprison the right sort of person. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act ) There's a much more dangerous drug than cocaine, for babies. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_cocaine_exposure ) It's alcohol, a legal drug. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome )

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either. The prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome is less than 5% for babies of women who drink more than 14 drinks per week during pregnancy: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=2... . There's very little evidence that low levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are bad for babies: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023984,00.ht…

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either.

So you're basically saying that it's OK to roll the dice with a child, since after all it's only a 20-sided die? That a mother's temporary gratification is more important than a 5% chance of your child suffering damage?

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#72

Post by Steko »

bittired wrote: post #46
JshWright wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could it not have an impact on intellectual capacity? Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. This things are all much easier to access when you have more money.

> Good nutrition, stimulation, and education are all important during development. But not so important that they would have a 40 point IQ difference. If it is, show me the studies confirming that.

Did you just pull "40 points" out of thin air because there are plenty of studies showing economic causes for smaller differences?

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#73

Post by ims »

Alex3917 wrote: post #52

"They found that 81 percent of the children had seen someone arrested; 74 percent had heard gunshots; 35 percent had seen someone get shot; and 19 percent had seen a dead body outside - and the kids were only 7 years old at the time." That's not really much different than the national average for kids whose parents aren't crackheads. E.g. 1 in 20 kids see someone get shot every year, so you would expect that by age s…

The average is misleading here. Where do you think those 1 in 20 kids mostly live?

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#74

Post by jpttsn »

jdmitch wrote: post #6

Hurt's study enrolled only full-term babies so the possible effects of prematurity did not skew the results. Doesn't this mean that their selection sample effectively excluded any babies that had a noticeable physical reaction (other than having cocaine in their system) to the effect of their mothers' cocaine use?

The provided justification ("so the possible effects of prematurity did not skew the results") is written in a somewhat self-gratifying way I think; simplifying the experimental design was surely another factor taken into account.

Excluding premature babies of course limits the study's relevance, though the results may be remarkable even if they only apply to full-term babies.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#75

Post by Flimm »

raverbashing wrote: post #45
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either. The prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome is less than 5% for babies of women who drink more than 14 drinks per week during pregnancy: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=2... . There's very little evidence that low levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are bad for babies: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023984,00.ht…

You're presenting facts, the "total abstinence" people don't like that. I find it funny how the "total abstinence" people come up with such amount of unproven facts, like "any consumption of alcohol" will cause harm. You'll be hard pressed to find a mother that hasn't consumed any alcohol whatsoever during pregnancy in Europe. This looks like it works as well as the "total abstinence" for sex works.

This is exactly the kind of comment I wish I could downvote:

"You're presenting facts, {position X} people don't like that."

"I find it funny how {position X} people come up with such amount of unproven facts, such as {exaggerated position X straw man}. You'll be hard pressed to find {an anecdote that supposedly confirms position X}."

"This looks like it works as well as {position Y}."

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#76

Post by gd1 »

pdonis wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either. The prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome is less than 5% for babies of women who drink more than 14 drinks per week during pregnancy: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=2... . There's very little evidence that low levels of alcohol consumption during pregnancy are bad for babies: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2023984,00.ht…

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either. So you're basically saying that it's OK to roll the dice with a child, since after all it's only a 20-sided die? That a mother's temporary gratification is more important than a 5% chance of your child suffering damage?

He said it was 5% for mothers that have 14 drinks per week or more. It will be much less (if not zero) for someone who has 2-3 drinks a week, which is his point.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#77

Post by napoleond »

Alex3917 wrote: post #52

"They found that 81 percent of the children had seen someone arrested; 74 percent had heard gunshots; 35 percent had seen someone get shot; and 19 percent had seen a dead body outside - and the kids were only 7 years old at the time." That's not really much different than the national average for kids whose parents aren't crackheads. E.g. 1 in 20 kids see someone get shot every year, so you would expect that by age s…

1 in 20 kids see someone get shot every year, so you would expect that by age seven that 7 in 20 would have

No I wouldn't, because:

a) I doubt the age distribution for "kids who see people get shot in a year" is constant. The linked article doesn't include age distributions, but they surveyed children up to age 17, and I would expect many more 15 year-olds to see people get shot than 7 year-olds.

b) I doubt the system is stochastic. It's probably more likely for the 1 in 20 from year 1 to see another few of the 7 shots in those 7 years (due to geographic and socio-economic factors) than it is for the other 19.

In other words, even for a country where gun violence is rampant, a study population where 35% of children below 7 have seen someone get shot is far from average.

Re: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result

#79

Post by saalweachter »

gd1 wrote: post #76
pdonis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alcohol isn't really that dangerous for babies either. So you're basically saying that it's OK to roll the dice with a child, since after all it's only a 20-sided die? That a mother's temporary gratification is more important than a 5% chance of your child suffering damage?

He said it was 5% for mothers that have 14 drinks per week or more. It will be much less (if not zero) for someone who has 2-3 drinks a week, which is his point.

I'm not informed on this topic but I'd like to point out that "14 drinks per week" is "two glasses of wine per day", which sounds like a lot less. You're not getting smashed or even buzzed on a couple of glasses of wine with dinner.
Post reply on HN