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.
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 Alpine regions of Europe.
This is one of the reasons that iodine is put into salt as a supplement.
I found that interesting too. I liked her disclaimer at the lead-in: "The investigation stops when the client no longer wants to pay for more, not when I’ve achieved a particular level of certainty I’m satisfied with. Etc. In this particular case they were satisfied with the answer after only a few hours, and I did not pursue beyond that"
Reminds me of the "synthesists" from the sci-fi classic 'Stand on Zanzibar'.
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.
It's not the only reason, but it is definitely one. It's part of a kind of "baloney detection kit", inspired by Carl Sagan; or something like the Crackpot Index. You should of course assess claims made by people in circles and websites frequented by cranks, but bear in mind mostly cranks post in those websites.
Likewise, if you read claims in websites where UFO conspiracy theories often post, you may find a nugget of truth, but it'd be healthy to keep a strong dose of skepticism. Reasonable people don't post in UFO conspiracy sites; likewise with LessWrong.
First of all, I know a lot of people disagree with lesswrong's consensus opinions on some contentious topics, but comparing it to a UFO site is a stretch. Second, when you dislike a website but see an essay hosted on it get highly upvoted, the skeptical thing to do is to update your opinion of the site, not maintain it despite new evidence to the contrary.
That is interesting. It sounds like this was just someone who was interested, but I can see it being useful having access to someone with research experience.
I really don't feel capable of reading academic papers, so for me this would be very useful.
> higher altitudes within the US have fewer environmental contaminants
Living in Denver, I routinely see headlines (and see with my own eyes) about how terrible the air quality is here, at certain times of the year at least. Wonder if that data controls for whether someone is in a high-altitude city or at the summit of a 14,000+ ft mountain.
HEPA filters work really well, it's worth just buying a few big ones and running them inside.
I got a few in CA because of the fires, but I run them all of the time and they work. I also have some AQI sensors and I can see the pm2.5 drop rapidly when the air filters kick in.
I don’t think it’s just particulates, Denver and the front range are routinely in the news for ozone issues [0]. I think that might be altitude related as well, though it may just be pollution. Den doesn’t quite make the top ten list of US cities with ozone problems, but it’s gotta be close [1].
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".
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.
Yeah, the smell that comes with it in the fall and winter is something else. I like Denver, but the brown cloud is no fun. It’s a downer coming out of the hills on I70 into the city and seeing it hanging there.
The dead salmon study showed the need to correct fMRI readings, if I recall correctly. I think they showed the dead salmon some pictures instead of playing music.
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.
There was an article I read recently — perhaps right here on HN — that pointed out cancer rates are lower at high altitudes. (The author suggested that it had to do with contaminants flowing down hill).
The point is (assuming neither study contains an artefact): there is a trade off.
