Pregnant women near the World Trade Center during the September 11 attacks experienced higher-than-normal negative birth outcomes according to new research [Subscription required to access full paper].
These mothers were more likely to give birth prematurely and deliver babies with low birth weights. Their babies -- especially baby boys -- were also more likely to be admitted to neonatal intensive care units [NICU] after birth.
"Previous research into the health impacts of in utero exposure to the 9/11 dust cloud on birth outcomes has shown little evidence of consistent effects. This is a puzzle given that 9/11 was one of the worst environmental catastrophes to have ever befallen New York City," said Currie, Henry Putnam Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, chair of the economics department and director of the Wilson School's Center for Health and Wellbeing. "Our work suggests a simple resolution of this puzzle, which is that the women who lived in neighborhoods exposed to the 9/11 dust cloud had very different experiences than women in other parts of New York City."
[...]
Using data on all births that were in utero on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York City and comparing those babies to their siblings, the researchers found that, for mothers in their first trimester during 9/11, exposure to this catastrophe more than doubled their chances of delivering a baby prematurely. Of the babies born, boys were more likely to have birth complications and very low birth weights. They were also more likely to be admitted to the NICU.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Saturday August 16 2014, @08:17PM
stress is known to be an important factor in the health of the birth. so how you separate the two (and other) causative factors might decide if "dust" should be an accepted (legal?) concern. at the very least it ought to be mentioned prominently in the article as a contributing factor, and i don't see that it is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by quacking duck on Sunday August 17 2014, @01:04AM
I think this is a good separator: "Our work suggests a simple resolution of this puzzle, which is that the women who lived in neighborhoods exposed to the 9/11 dust cloud had very different experiences than women in other parts of New York City."
It's safe to say almost everyone in NYC was under similar extreme stress that day, including pregnant women in neighbourhoods affected and unaffected by the dust cloud. If there's enough deviation that it shows up in a study like this, then excluding stress as a factor isn't out of the question.
As someone else noted, socio-economic differences could play a part, but for "normal" differences like that you can factor in normal birth stats e.g. for those born before 9/11.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 17 2014, @01:32AM
A blood test for toxins is another way to uncover such factors and eliminate stress as the cause.
(Score: 1) by soylentsandor on Sunday August 17 2014, @05:31AM
It might be just a bit too late for that...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zafiro17 on Saturday August 16 2014, @08:20PM
OK, but ... did they aggregate the data? The disaster happened in Manhattan, but most people commute to Manhattan from other places. And once you start looking at neighborhood data, all sorts of socioeconomic differences start to creep up. Did the women from that poor neighborhood have more miscarriages because they were exposed to dust, or because they were cleaning crew earning minimum wage, eating poor food, and having lousy access to health care? This is America, after all, where the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting drunk.
I could probably figure this out by reading the article, but can't be arsed to weed through it. 9/11 sucked big time - don't need to rehash any new memories.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:17PM
don't them airplanes have depleted uranium counterweights on rails in their bellies so that if the loaded cargo has uneven load distribution (like all fat passengers in the back) that they can shift the center of weight by moving the depleted uranium bars to the front ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:38PM
as of today (17.august.2014) wikipedia thinks so: "Civilian uses include counterweights in aircraft [...]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium [wikipedia.org]
quick calculation: to make a 200 Ton nuclear reactor w/ 7.5 % enriched uranium from regular 0.3% uranium ore you will get ~ 5'000 tons of depleted uranium "waste" ... for airplanes, golf clubs, bullets, "armor" and "non-babies"?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 16 2014, @10:03PM
Perhaps, but they don't have a lot of such mass (perhaps a ton or two overall), else it wouldn't be economical to fly. Also any such counterweights would probably have ended up on the bottom of the vast rubble pile due to the very high density of the material.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday August 17 2014, @01:35AM
Any data on how far the problems from the dust cloud reached?
(another lesson: Don't use toxic material in buildings.. it won't stay there)