9/11 led to increase in male miscarriages: report - Macleans.ca
 

9/11 led to increase in male miscarriages: report

Fewer boys were born in all states in months following attacks


 

It seems that the stress caused by the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York contributed to an increase of miscarriages in male fetuses, according to a new review from the University of California, Irvine, which supports what experts call the theory of “communal bereavement,” or the acute mental distress that follows a major national event. The study, in BMC Public Health, found that 12 per cent more male babies were lost in Sept. 2001 after the 20th week of pregnancy, than in what would be called a “normal” September,” and fewer boys were born in all states three to four months after the attack. Stressful times reportedly reduce male birth rate across many species, said lead researcher Dr. Tim Bruckner.

BBC News


 
Filed under:

9/11 led to increase in male miscarriages: report

  1. You only need one male to impregnate however many females you have, but each female takes nine months to carry a pregnancy to term.. so it makes sense that our biology will have evolved such that in times of stress, the physical resources of women carrying an unborn male will be devoted more to keeping themselves healthy but the physical resources of women carrying an unborn female will have relatively more of them devoted to ensuring the child gets born.

    • From my very basic understanding of human biology, the stress has nothing to do with the metabolism of the mother compared to the gender of the unborn child, but simply the fact that male babies are generally more fragile and likely to be miscarried in all situations. Stress would have the same effect on all unborn children, but male babies are less capable of dealing with it.

      It carries through our lifespan too – males are more likely to die young and generally more susceptible to a host of disorders with genetic links (stupid Y chromosome!)

      On the plus side, males are conceived a lot more often, so it all comes out about even in the end (well… except in China).

      • Fair enough, but that ties in in much the same manner.. evolutionarily speaking, our species survival simply doesn't have as much need for an abundance of males as it does for an abundance of females. Thus, females are the hardier of the two genders.

  2. Thwin – I do not follow what you are saying, but it sounds interesting.

    • My theology — if you can call it such — is evolution and natural selection. I believe that most general trends in society can be explained most completely by looking at things from the framework of evolution and natural selection. (I also believe we're doomed as a species unless we learn this and learn to start actively going beyond it — but that's going way off into my own ramblings and tangentville)

      Well, in evolution and natural selection, the only thing that is important is a better continuation of your species/bloodline/genetics. Times of stress are times when our bodies are using more resources making sure that we keep alive and healthy so that we can breed and continue our lines. Resources are finite. So those species that maintain the same rates of birth between males and females are being inefficient in their use of resources (only takes one male to impregnate however many females in a fairly short time frame.. but a female can only be impregnated once every nine months or so) and if the resources stay scarce long enough, individuals with that characteristic will find they simply can't have as many progeny as those with the characteristics of the females being more likely to be born/hardier.

      • "I believe that most general trends in society can be explained most completely by looking at things from the framework of evolution and natural selection."

        Except for race, and gender (this instance being the exception). Indeed, your side refers to Darwin's followers as "racists". You can be a Darwinist, or a leftist, but not both, pick one. There is a massive amount of science developed on race and gender issues and leftists want nothing to do with it.

        Phillipe Rushton's work is peer reviewed and world renowned, and yet he is possibly the most hated academic in Canada due entirely to leftist oppression. Kevin MacDonald's research on evolutionary psychology has put his life in danger. The anti-misandry journal The Spearhead is a treasure trove of gender science, yet feminists have smeared the writers there as rapists. Leftists typically view men and women as interchangeable economic inputs; that's not scientific at all. Women are very, very different than men and it's logical that they would participate or not participate in the workforce differently than men; despite this, leftists insist on identical outcomes ( but only in the professions they cherry pick).

        Every time we conservatives take the time to educate leftists on evolution and related matters the result is the same: oppression.

        • Isn't there a bridge you're supposed to be under?

          As a side point, where did I say that that is a *good* thing?

  3. Ha ha ha.And also frogs at this time were found to get an increase in warts.Is this now The national enquirer?