Abstract
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fish consumption is the most significant route of mercury exposure, and the concern is greatest for women of childbearing age due to the potential for neurodevelopmental effects on a developing fetus. Rates of developmental disorders vary. But in 2008 it was demonstrated that the rate of autism is higher near industries that emit heavy metals. Furthermore past research findings can be taken to show that where a pregnancy occurred may predict later autism likelihood in the offspring more than where diagnosis occurs. If mercury plays any role in developmental disabilities, the rate of disability should relate to any reliable direct measure of contamination. The current research focuses on one index of environmental mercury contamination. Specifically, mercury-related fish advisories are found to be a surprisingly strong predictor of a state’s autism rate, r = 0.48, p < 0.001. The relationship remains strong after controlling for student to teacher ratio and per pupil spending. It is argued that a secular increase in autism has been occurring and that prenatal exposure to heavy metal toxins may play a significant role. Because we suspect this finding may be of some interest, the full data set is provided in the appendix so that researchers can independently analyze the key findings which rely on CDC, EPA and IDEA data sets.
Highlights
Prior to the late 1980’s, studies conducted in the United States found low rates of Autism
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fish consumption is the most significant route of mercury exposure, and the concern is greatest for women of childbearing age due to the potential for neurodevelopmental effects on a developing fetus
Because we suspect this finding may be of some interest, the full data set is provided in the appendix so that researchers can independently analyze the key findings which rely on Center for Disease Control (CDC), EPA and Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) data sets
Summary
Prior to the late 1980’s, studies conducted in the United States found low rates of Autism. In 1996, the prevalence of autistic disorder among 8 year olds was 4.7 per 1000; in 2000 it was 6.5; in 2002 it was 7.6 To be clear, these results do not use different definitions for autism across time, do not rely on different case finding methods, but do consistently use more than one method for finding cases, and age at diagnosis was controlled across time—all of which have been noted as reasons to disregard previous reports of an increase [11]. We realize that diagnostic trends matter and that some of the variation may be artifact, but it seems worthy of scientific study that in Iowa one would find that 1 in 343 children have an ASD and door in Minnesota 1 in 81 would be seen to have autism [12]; clearly it would be unwise to a priori assume such differences are 100% artifact. Available data may suggest there is some actual variation in incidence, and the variation has not been fully explained
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
