The authors said a major limitation of their research is that it only looked at where the women lived when their babies were born, not where they lived or worked during their pregnancies, or whether they had long commutes in heavily polluted areas. Still, they said by using neighborhood data, they were probably more accurate in estimating the women’s exposures than past researchers have been.
Beate Ritz, an epidemiology professor at UCLA’s School of Public Health, was the study’s senior author. Her research has focused on using geographic information to map people’s exposure to pollutants and chemicals and search for links to chronic diseases such as Parkinson's and cancer.
Woodruff said many researchers are starting to use such data, which only has been available in recent years, because it can provide “reasonable estimates of what people are exposed to.”
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
9 Comments
Add CommentPretty unconvincing to me on causation. Let's see, if you live near a freeway or a port you are probably poorer. This leads to many other more important consequences than nearby traffic including worse diet, less access to medical care, greater likelihood of obesity, more likely to smoke or use illegal drugs, less likely to excersise, and likely to be under greater stress. Let's face it. The U.S. does not have a significant air pollution problem despite contorted studies like this one to the contrary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy oldest daughter was born at 30 weeks and I don't live anywhere near anything. It happens. It's always happened. Pollution is not a very likely cause. This is a study with a political agenda, like many others these days.
Before we blame pollution for everything, even though it isn't a good thing, how does this correlated with past premie birth rates when Los Angles was even worse than it is today. Could we also see a correlation of premies in China where pollution is far worse than in California.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly traffic-generated emissions were included in the study, not pollutants from factories and other sources.
..."
I wonder how the researchers were able to exclude the impact of cigarette smoking, industrial and other sources of air pollution.
I love comments by armchair scientists who have probably not ever constructed a properly formed hypothesis in their entire lives and who wouldn't know the scientific method if it came and bit them on the leg.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI doubt that Octo-Mom would agree with this analysis. Albert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd don't forget traffic noise as it affects pregnant mothers. I am disappointed the author made no mention of the number of uncontrolled variables. There is no way anybody can make any legitimate conclusions based on this study. It's simply bad science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps JRBobDobbs could enlighten us "armchair scientists" on the conclusions he has drawn from the above article and why he accepts the findings. Also perhaps he could counter our points with some specifics based on his extensive knowledge of the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJRBobDobbs - perhaps you can tell us what firm conclusions you have reached after reading this article and what those conclusions are based upon. Was it the compelling testimonials of the women who had pre-term babies and who lived near a highway? Perhaps you can draw upon your knowledge of the scientific method to address the specific objections of us "armchair scientists". Or could it be that this is just another study trying to make a social statement based on scant evidence?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tend to agree, from someone with no science background. I lived in Riverside and had 2 miscarriages, while 7 of my friends also had miscarriages at the same time. Then I was very early in pregnancy and did now know I was pregnant during the San Diego Wildfires in 2007. I had to work rescue and assist for thousands of evacuees, myself included. We did the best we could for what we had at the time. My daughter ended up with a very rare genetic abnormality and the odds were 1 in 100,000. Seems to have major connections. I would suggest a study around those that were pregnant in the most recent Southern California wildfires.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this