What do you think of this theory?

Post Reply New Topic

My mother was 20 years old, when I was born and around 26 when she got her drivers-license.
But my father has a lot of autistic traits, BAP or probably AS.

I took the subway when pregnant with my son and didn't drive much at all when pregnant with my daughter. So, no, I don't think filling my car with gas had anything to do with it. Might be true for some, but doesn't apply to me/us at all. However, living in a major metropolitan area at the time of both pregnancies, it would have been literally impossible for me to avoid pollution. But most of my "ancestors" lived in the rural midwest. Not much pollution there, but yet there is evidence of autism or BAP in generations of my family.

I do not believe autism is a homogenous condition. I think there are numerous underlying causes and believe that just because something doesn't account for autism and AC's in my family, it doesn't mean it couldn't be relevant to someone else, with some other form of the condition. I choose to be open minded. If there are numerous conditions with numerous causes, closing down one avenue of inquiry because it doesn't suit everyone would have disastrous results, IMHO.

Is it not possible that autism is both a natural cognitive difference in some and a result of underlying illness in others? Is it not possible that some are born autistic because that is the way they were meant to be, whereas others developed autistic traits due to some kind of environmental insult? I see no reason to be close-minded to the possibility that both statements are true. I also find it self-serving to discredit the possibility that does not fit with your own personal experience. There is room for more than one truth.

A higher RATE means a higher number relative to the population.

If a town of 100 people has ten austics, and New York City (with a population of eight million) has 80,000 autistics- then the small town has an autism rate of ten percent vs New York City's autism rate of one percent. So the small town would have a higher RATE of autism even though it has a smaller absolute number of autistics.

Thanks for the correction! In that case, I meant to ask whether the rate of incidence of ASD in cities and rural towns was the same. (Maybe I should re-read that article...)

If autism is genetic then it may be more likely that in areas of higher population autistic people may have a better chance of passing on their genes, which would imply that areas of higher population would probably have more children, which would imply that there could be higher rates of population density in those areas.