This is a great example of junk science. Of people with an agenda wanting a conclusion and then making evidence to match.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100517/...pphu-container
So these government researchers asked parents if they thought their kids were hyper, and they used this as a diagnosis of ADHD. No psychiatrist, just the parent's opinion.
Then they took a one time urine sample from the kids, this sample of waste from the child's most recent meal was taken as an indicator of all the food the child has eaten from birth, and the food his mom ate while pregnant.
If they found pesticide residue in the urine, they decided that this must be causing ADHD in the brain, because if it is in the urine it must be in the brain too, and if it is in the brain, it must be causing ADHD. Because 10% more parents in this very small study had an opinion saying their kid was hyper when the kid ended up having a little bit of fresh fruit with his last meal. This is a classic cum hoc fallacy. Two things coming at the same time, must have a causal relationship. Like if you hear thunder right when a bird flies overhead, you must logically think the bird created thunder.
Every step of the way these people failed the scientific method. You should learn to recognize these things as scare tactics and remember to think for yourself when presented with research.
Consequently, pesticides used to be stronger, and more heavily used, and yet ADHD, supposedly, is exponentially more common today. Obviously, logic dictates pesticide use back in the 1950s was preventing ADHD. :rolleyes:
