Autism rates double in Utah

POSTED BY: Bytemite
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 06:01
VIEWED: 3477
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

BYTEMITE

Sunday, May 8, 2011 6:11 PM

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/faith/51759624-78/autism-utah-disorder-ed
ucation.html.csp

>_>

http://www.slcgov.com/utilities/NewsEvents/news2003/news9122003.htm

Let's see, largest population concentration in the state along the Wasatch Front, notable change in an environmental factor that bioaccumulates in parents, passes the blood-brain barrier, and bonds to fat cells in the brain. Gee, I dunno.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:32 PM

The number of Autistic children has been increasing for some time and I've heard of every reasoning from Vaccines to Television. The TV reasoning intrigues me, research has shown that watching television before 2 years of age can have a negative impact on development, but Autism via TV could turn out to be psuedo science same as the vaccination theory.

I wonder if we aren't just noticing Autism more nowadays. It's good that we are, so that we can initiate behavioral therapy or adjust their curriculum as needed. Another thing to consider is that Autism is becoming a broader diagnoses, absorbing some other related developmental disorders such as Aspergers.

BYTEMITE

Sunday, May 8, 2011 8:06 PM

Oh, there are a number of possible factors for autism, I don't mean to discount any of them. I'm sure the causes of autism will vary between people and places. (And I have my doubts about autism and vaccines, though vaccines have their dangers)

It's just eight years ago in Utah, we started fluoridating the water, and over the last six years we've seen autism rates double? Okay, correlation isn't causation, but I find that mighty suspicious.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Sunday, May 8, 2011 9:08 PM

It's a reasonable suspicion I think, with the data all being highly localized. I wasn't criticizing that. You're right, correlation isn't causation. There's a fair number who think the television becoming part of our daily lives carries the strongest correlation with the first recorded cases of Autism and it's rise in numbers. Much like your fluoride in Utah, it's a significant change that correlates.

The vaccine theory gets on my nerves because it is a persistent hoax shown to be perpetrated by a dishonest scientist taking money from an attorney with their own anti-vaccination agenda (I'm grossly paraphrasing from listenings to NPR and some articles I've read on the subject).

RIONAEIRE

Monday, May 9, 2011 3:12 AM

I have some theories on the matter, some of which our friend DT won't like.

Theory 1: There are some genetic links with autism. I believe that our gene pool is getting worse and worse over time. For instance when I was little I got sick a lot. If I'd lived back in the day I probably would have died from one of the sicknesses or another by the time I was five or six, people died so easily back then from infections/flu/etc. Now we have antibiotics (thankfully) so I lived to adulthood, as do most children in this country. I'm choosing not to have children, partly because I don't want any of my problematic genes to pass down, of which there are a few. But most people, questionable genes or not, who make it to adulthood choose to have children. Fortunately we live in a society in which most people make it to adulthood and can live their lives, but the increase in people with differences means that our society needs to evolve to handle that, because face it, there are more and more of us.

Theory 2: We've got so many rutted up artificial chemicals in everything these days, our food, our water, our air, our soil. We have more of that stuff than we've ever had before, which fits in with what Byte was posting about, the floride in the water supply. Having all that stuff in our food and water can't be good for us, especially for kids. Sure kids are really resilliant, but too much is too much.

Theory 3. I think autism encompasses more things than it used to, it includes more differences than it used to. Its definition has changed since the 40s when it was first cemented as a concept/diagnostic category. Did autism exist before it was classified? I believe it did, its just that people called it different things, labels change over time. Right now autism includes a lot of things/conditions. I would also venture to say that now adays autism is overdiagnosed. If I were growing up now adays I'd probably end up getting tagged with an autism diagnosis, even though I know I don't have autism. When I was little, as now, I like routine, I don't do well with change. I have systems and methods for doing things and, though I can deviate from them if necessary most of the time, I prefer to stick with them because I see them as the way I do things. I'm very passionate, I've always had "special interests", I care about things intensely. When I was little (3 and 4, I grew out of it after that) I didn't like playing with the children in my preschool class except for my best friend, my mother and the teacher had to make a rule that I was only allowed to play with Kayla for part of the time so I'd branch out to play with the other kids. They also had to make a rule that I was only allowed to play with the little horses for a certain amount of time since they were my favorite, that and pretends of course, pretends are still one of my favorite things to do, though obviously they're much more complex now, centered around plot twists and charactor development etc. The point is that I'm so glad I didn't get saddled with an autism diagnosis, the last thing I need is something else "wrong" with me. :)

So yeah, those are my theories, controversial? Maybe, but this is what I think.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, May 9, 2011 3:26 AM

Interesting, Byte. We've had flouride in our water since the 70's, but I believe the increase in diagnosing ASD began a lot later than that. Still, environmental factors have yet to be comprehensively ruled out.

I do think that at least part of the increase is down to diagnosing. It used to be that only the 'autism' part was diagnosed, not he autism spectrum. Which meant you had to be very severe to get a diagnosis, not able to go to mainstream school. Diagnosing those who do not have those severe traits but fit within the spectrum has opened up the flood gates so to speak. The amount of children within my circle who have been diagnosed with ASD has reached double digits, and I'm not convinced that if I had gotten my son tested he would also sit within that spectrum. Of those children, one was struggling in mainstream school and has probably since gone on to a different type of education. He'll probably struggle to hold down a job, relationships etc. Of the others, they were on the whole 'normal' (I hate to use that word) kids with behavioural or social issues. They struggle with school, but you sense that they will be okay. They have had various degrees of intervention, from zilch to additional schooling support. I went to school with kids like these. they weren't diagnosed, they were considered naughty or anti social. So I'd say part of the increase is about the spectrum that is now diagnosed.

It doesn't seem to be the full story, anecdotally at least. Teachers and maternal and child health nurses who have been in their profession for a long time say they notice an increase in certain characteristics amongst children. Is it environment? Parenting style? So there has to be some other explanation for this - happening pretty universally in most western nations.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, May 9, 2011 3:59 AM

I'm speaking primarily from personal experiences so like Fruede, my knowledge may not be as accurate outside of my 'case studies' as it were.

Autism is a developmental disorder that primarily seems to affect language and socialization. They say the eye contact difficulty is common, but oddly enough I haven't encountered that. 'Course, I'm pretty positive and easygoing, probably not 'threatening' enough to set their amygdala into overdrive. There's lots of sensory stuff involved too. The repetitive actions and odd behaviors (such as always walking on tip toes) are often methods of coping with over or under stimulation.

I don't have enough experience or knowledge to really grok how 'special interest' play into Autism. They do seem common but I don't really see it as a negative thing and it's not a behavior I've had reason to modify yet. Of course, I haven't come across a violent and/or socially unacceptable special interest yet. They can make for handy teaching tools though and occasionally offer excellent motivators to reinforce our target behaviors. Ex: One 3 year old client had a fascination with sticks so I employed 'sticks' (usually a drink straw) as motivators for doing our verbal learning activities. I also used his interest in 'sticks' to teach him to discriminate between 'stick,' 'straw' and 'wand' verbally.

The little ones I work with (3-5 year olds) don't play well together. They would much rather play alone and only seem to interact with other children when they want something the other child has (usually by taking it.) We're working on the concept of sharing, but when they are mostly nonverbal it can be difficult to tell if I'm really getting through. Well, not difficult as much as it takes longer. Of course, another common diagnoses for trouble sharing is '3-5 years old.'

I've got a little helper right now during play time, one of the little girls in the special needs class is trying to help my client play and she's quite patient with him. He's learning to play with me, and I'd really like for the skills to transfer when interacting with other children. 'Play' is a very important and often underrated part of a child's development and these kids need to learn how to interact with more than just their therapist.

I seem to have forgotten where I was going with all of that... Anyway, there are many behaviors and symptoms common to Autism that can also be observed in those who are not Autistic, or not observed in those that Autistic. I do think it's quite possible (probable even) that Autism is over diagnosed. Fortunately the behavioral therapy we offer is beneficial whether they are autistic or not. I do worry when over diagnoses leads to over medication though.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, May 9, 2011 4:04 AM

Quote:
It doesn't seem to be the full story, anecdotally at least. Teachers and maternal and child health nurses who have been in their profession for a long time say they notice an increase in certain characteristics amongst children. Is it environment? Parenting style? So there has to be some other explanation for this - happening pretty universally in most western nations.

This is why the Television theory intrigues me. It hasn't been debunked or tested much to my knowledge, but there is a massive (though quite possibly meaningless) correlation.

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, May 9, 2011 4:19 AM

Happy, the behavioural stuff probably causes difficulties later on, when kids are at school. I think it probably has a lot to do with feelings of frustration, but the diagnosed children I know who have had intervention have had it because of the behaviour - lashing out, running away, withdrawing. Getting a diagnosis is the only way some teachers will rethink their interventions, other than constant punishment.

The full blown autism where kids basically just stop communicating at about 3 is another matter all together. very difficult.

THEHAPPYTRADER

Monday, May 9, 2011 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Happy, the behavioural stuff probably causes difficulties later on, when kids are at school. I think it probably has a lot to do with feelings of frustration, but the diagnosed children I know who have had intervention have had it because of the behaviour - lashing out, running away, withdrawing. Getting a diagnosis is the only way some teachers will rethink their interventions, other than constant punishment.

The full blown autism where kids basically just stop communicating at about 3 is another matter all together. very difficult.

Not sure if I follow, my tired mind might not be interpreting this right, but I get the feeling I'm being corrected, only I don't see anything I disagree with or that disagrees with my posts (leastaways how I mean for my post to be interpreted).

You are quite right about many of the teachers though. Unfortunately, this can occasionally cut both ways. Because many teachers don't know enough about developmental disorders to address special needs children in the regular classroom, they sometimes go too easy on the child, confusing 'compliance' with 'comprehension' and the kid gets away with whatever they want and learns next to nothing.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE