Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't study the effect of lead on the researchers.
"In our sample, most of the damage to intellectual functioning
occurs
at blood-lead concentrations that are below 10 mcg/dl," said
Canfield. The amount of impairment was also much greater than the
researchers had expected. "Given the relatively low exposure levels,
we were surprised to find that the IQ scores of children with
blood-lead levels of 10 mcg/dl were about seven points lower than
for children with lead levels of 1 mcg/dl," Canfield said.

Chuckle. That sounds like a repeat of a similar study done in the
1960's. I'll see if I can find the references (later). What they did
was compare the IQ scores of children that lived near a lead recycling
plant in Colorado(?) with those in a more pristine atmosphere. The
former were in a designated poverty area, while the latter were in a
more affluent location. The IQ test results were predictable. The
same data also showed an increased incidence of various diseases in
the former. Hopefully, this report is a bit more sane.

Incidentally, one of my friends is a biomedical researcher. She does
the numbers for many such research projects. I don't know if it's
really true, but many such studies cannot be funded unless the result
is known in advance. They can't afford to embarrass those that are
paying the bills.

Sounds like most opinion polls. The *first* thing I want to know about
the latest & greatest poll results is *who paid* for the poll. This
information is usually enough to explain the results.

Jerry