I am not sure what this comment from Paddy is getting at. The news article makes clear that this is a highly statistically significant finding albeit in a small sample, but the reporter is certainly not dismissive of the findings even if she quite rightly indicates that it is not a slam dunk. The word "may" is entirely appropriate for this kind of preliminary study. Let's save our fire where it is really needed, shall we?

MB

On 7/30/07, Paddy Apling <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
At 12:19 30/07/2007, you wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-autism30jul30,0,6609909.story?coll=la-tot-callocal&track=ntothtml


Pesticide link to autism suspected



A state study suggests two farm sprays may raise chances of having a child with the disorder.
By Marla Cone
Times Staff Writer

July 30, 2007

Women who live near California farm fields sprayed with organochlorine pesticides may be more likely to give birth to children with autism, according to a study by state health officials to be published today.

To which the best reponse is to say:
Any science news item having the wors MAY in its first sentence gives the game away - it really is as good as saying "Here follows a load of junk".

Paddy
http://apling.freeservers.com




--
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
[log in to unmask]
******************************************