Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Why just now and not before?

April 2009

The National Children’s Study will examine the effects of environmental influences on the health and development of 100,000 children across the United States, following them from before birth until age 21. The goal of the Study is to improve the health and well-being of children.

http://www.nationalchildrensstudy.gov/Pages/default.aspx

 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 7:50 AM on Aug. 12, 2009 in Politics & Current Events

This question is closed.
Answers (12)
  • Last October--and you are saying "Thanks Obama"? You are some very confused individuals! Let's revisit history--last October, President Obama was still Senator Obama--Pres. Bush was heading the train. But like someone else said--screw the kids. Who needs them right? Oh wait--if this is CafeMom, I would guess kids are pretty important. Why did it take this long? Could be the increases in health problems due to asthma, obesity, juvenile diabetes, etc...of course all of this is Obama's fault. I am sure Pill-popper Limbaugh or Sarah Failin will say so very soon and the right wing loonies will jump on board like what happened with the pretend euthanasia (yes I have read the bill and there is nothing like this in it) and Nazi comparisons. Pathetic creatures you haters and misinformed women who believe Chicken Large that the sky is indeed falling (well with the Perseid's right now, it may be!)

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 11:12 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • Probably needed several Billion dollars to be able to implement....Thanks Obama!!!!


    (sarcasm)


    eye rolling

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 7:53 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • LOL...I was purely speculating in my above post....but "for fun" decided if I was correct in assumption....and what do you know?????


    http://www.aps-spr.org/Public_Policy/2009_docs/200904.htm

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 8:17 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • YEAH! Damn Government and their wasteful spending on children's health studies!!!! Screw the kids!


    (also sarcasm)
    beckcorc

    Answer by beckcorc at 8:18 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • Sorry Lori, I couldn't resist :)
    beckcorc

    Answer by beckcorc at 8:18 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • "Last October, the NCS announced the 25 new Study Centers that will manage operations in approximately 30 additional locations of the National Children's Study. Mike Genel, MD, an immediate past member of the NCS advisory council and chair of the Public Policy Council, at the request of the Academy, represented the pediatric community at this teleconference briefing"
    "In January, the NCS initiated field work for the pilot/feasibility study in two of the seven Vanguard locations – Queens, NY and Duplin, NC. The remainder will be included later in the year."

    Lori Thanks for the link OP
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 8:25 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • What is this going to prove?!


    "Central to the study is the collection of data about the patients, including information prior to conception, from the deliveries of the babies, and all the way up to young adulthood"


    http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/database/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=210800109


    Haven't there already been all kinds of "studies" on children across all socio-economic and cultural demographics--how they learn, what they're exposed to, how they turn out?! There have been dirt-poor kids who have grown up to become "rocket-scientists," and those who have had everything handed to them and they turn out to be "waste products!"

    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 8:30 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • Lori, I fail to see how studies of children's health are a bad thing, no matter how many have been done. If something is learned that can save or improve the lives or our children, isn't it worth it?

    I did read in Harper's Magazine that there are going to be new studies about the BPH in baby bottles and what not. Previous studies found levels to be "harmless" but the studies were conducted in poorly controlled subjects. For example one such study used a breed of rats that is notoriously immune to the effects of estrogen, since BPH acts like estrogen in the body the study is invalid. It is a kin to conducting a study on the risks of measles exposure when the subjects have been vaccinated already.

    Anyway, my point is that any studies that are aimed towards improve our children's health are well worth it. I can't see why any mother would object.
    beckcorc

    Answer by beckcorc at 8:40 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • I agree with beckcorc !
    Tristana

    Answer by Tristana at 8:56 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

  • beck--I guess I didn't make myself clear--THIS particular study is focusing on "superficial" things--not MEDICALLY based things.

    I am all for medically based studies like the one you mentioned....not interested in spending billions of dollars to follow 100,000 children throughout their lifetimes only to dicover what happens to Baby A who grows up in New York City, and if he'll be as successful in life as Baby B raised in the country of North Carolina!!!

    And thanks Tristana, once again, for your insightful contribution to this thread.
    LoriKeet

    Answer by LoriKeet at 9:05 AM on Aug. 12, 2009

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN