This is an example of why we (as a species) should be more environmentally responsible for reasons other than "global warming". It also further demonstrates how "global warming" is a misnomer beyond the parodies of rednecks saying "so that means I won't have to buy snow jackets anymore?" And that's significant, because it shows a much broader, stronger case than "the earth's getting warmer" exists. If such points could be extended past the politicised arena of "humans are/are not responsible for the Earth 'warming up'", perhaps there would be even more room for headway.
This combined with Ipwn's idea to kill everyone with an IQ lower than 75 is going to cause us to go extinct.
I agree, people should care about the environment for more of a reason than wanting to be able to say they went "green." Most don't really care, they just want to look cool.
Ok a racist is someone who is againts a sertain race not personality. A redneck is a personalty not a race. Irish,Italian,Chinese,Scotts,etc. are all races. If I were to say (and no i am not really saying this) I absolutly hate Chinese or some other race then I would be a racist. So Aussinizi calling someone a Redneck is not being a racist you are just making a statment(I think my grammar isnt exactly perfect). Anyway i think people should be greener than they are now. I think that a childs IQ could be linked to polution, because it would make sense. Air Polution goes into you lungs(obvious enough), and any air in you lungs will be put into you blood. Blood goes throughout you entire body many, many, many times just having low oxygen blood goes through the heart and then goes through the lungs and finnaly completes the cycle once more. So yes I think polution is related to childeren's IQ.
I would like to know the socio-economic statuses of the children they tested. If those kids in the polluted areas (Bronx and Manhattan) were in poor, gang-infested areas, that could explain the lower IQ.
I'm hearing Nazism in the making. Maybe the next Hitler will be the one who takes this up and leads and army to kill millions of people with an IQ lower than 75. This is just stupid.
Pardon me if I say so, but I would like to inquire as to what exactly Strop is trying to get across. If he's suggesting that he agrees with this, than from now on its Strop Hitler, although I don't think he is.
I'm hearing Nazism in the making. Maybe the next Hitler will be the one who takes this up and leads and army to kill millions of people with an IQ lower than 75. This is just stupid.
Pardon me if I say so, but I would like to inquire as to what exactly Strop is trying to get across. If he's suggesting that he agrees with this, than from now on its Strop Hitler, although I don't think he is.
No no no, that's not what the threads about. I just mentioned that if we allow the environment to get worse and worse, and implemented Ipwn's ideas, it would be the end of humanity.
The thread should discuss how the environment is affecting IQ.
Only 249 children? Talk about a small study sample.
Also - how can you possibly make a control group for that sort of environment? After all, if you're going to be living in a crowded urban setting it's going to be difficult to get a group that *isn't* being exposed to that level of pollution. In addition, it seems a little premature to think that the pollution is the specific cause when there are so many variables.
There is a mmore direct link to solar activity and temperature then there is to CO2 and temperature. If anything it's all the solar radiation to the little kiddies and their radioactive dino chicken nuggets.
Only 249 children? Talk about a small study sample.
In the world of statistics, even a sample size of 30-50 is surprisingly accurate.
After all, if you're going to be living in a crowded urban setting it's going to be difficult to get a group that *isn't* being exposed to that level of pollution.
The control group is probably children who live in a smaller, less urban area.
In the world of statistics, even a sample size of 30-50 is surprisingly accurate.
Are you kidding?
around 50 people in a study is an estimated 15% margin of error - that's enormous when you apply the data to a larger population.
At the 200 mark, you're still loooking at close to 7%.
With such small numbers, it's impossible to determine normal distribution, as the entire study could fall into a standard deviation.
The control group is probably children who live in a smaller, less urban area.
That's no control group at all. What you would need is a area that is just as urban with the population crammed in there like sardines, with significantly less (if not none) pollution. The whole purpose of having a control is eliminating as many (if not all) of the variables next to the one that you're actually studying.
