[P]renatal exposure to coal-burning emissions was associated with significantly lower average developmental scores and reduced motor development at age two. In the second unexposed group, these adverse effects were no longer observed; and the frequency of delayed motor developmental was significantly reduced.
The full study in the July 14th Environmental Health Perspectives is available online: “Benefits of Reducing Prenatal Exposure to Coal Burning Pollutants to Children’s Neurodevelopment in China.” The study provides yet more evidence — if any were needed — to ban traditional coal plants: “elimination of prenatal exposure to coalburning emissions resulted in measurable benefits to children’s development.” This is a very sophisticated study, which used molecular markers to directly track exposure to coal plant emissions:
“This is a unique environmental intervention study using molecular techniques to demonstrate the relationship between a cleaner environment and healthier children,” added Deliang Tang, MD, DrPh, associate professor of clinical Environmental Health Sciences at the Mailman School, director of the Tongliang Project, and co-author of the study.
Prenatal exposure to plant emissions was measured by a biomarker of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure in umbilical cord blood. The investigators controlled for exposures to other pollutants, such as tobacco smoke and lead, which might have contributed to neurodevelopment problems.
Children in the first cohort had varying exposure prenatally to PAHs emitted by the coal-fired power plant. This exposure was recorded by monitoring the levels of PAHs in air during the mothers’ pregnancies and in measuring a marker of PAH exposure in cord blood– specifically the levels of PAHs bound to DNA, known as “PAH-DNA adducts”. Among these children, the researchers found significant associations between the marker of exposure in cord blood and delayed motor and average development at age two. The second group of children, who were conceived after the closure of the plant, had significantly lower levels of the marker in cord blood and their incidence of delayed motor development was one-third that of the first cohort.
Bottom line: If you don’t want to your children to be dummies, join the fight to shut down dirty coal plants.
(h/t Coal is dirty!)
[My first photoshopped image! Technically, Corel Paint Shop Pro.]
- Breaking News: Georgia judge blocks coal plant over CO2 emissions
- Coal is (not) clean
- The Coal Calm in Kansas, for now
- Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 2.6: What is the impact of peak oil and peak coal?
- Can the coal industry be saved in spite of itself? Should it be?
- A Simple Proposal: A Coal Power Non-Proliferation Treaty
- Is the World Bank Coal-fused?
- Kansas Gov. Sebelius vetoes coal plants
- Up against a wall — of coal
- Power plants costs double since 2000 — Efficiency anyone?
- Bad, Governor. Bad, Coal.
- Coal hits a wall named Wall Street
- In seeming flipflop, Bush drops mismanaged ‘NeverGen’ clean coal project
- No Questions On Global Warming Asked At CNN’s Coal Industry-Sponsored Presidential Debates
- China to develop clean energy, but keep burning coal
- The “other” Achilles heel of coal
- The immorality of China’s coal policy is breathtaking (literally) — Part I
- Dr. Hansen to Dr. Merkel: Carbon is forever — so ban new traditional coal plants now