A 1990 study of winter births claimed compulsory school laws improved test scores, increased later earnings, improved health and lengthened life. It was nonsense, based on assumptions that weren’t true and never investigated.

Children born in the winter months already have a few strikes against them. Study after study has shown that they test poorly, don’t get as far in school, earn less, are less healthy, and don’t live as long as children born at other times of year. Researchers have spent years documenting the effect and trying to understand it. —Wall Street Journal

Joshua Angrist of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Alan Krueger of Princeton University wrote the original paper. The problem isn’t so much that they missed blatantly obvious and critical data —which they surely did— it is that the tiny differences in tests, earnings, health and lifespans were translated in government enforcement.

It is accepted as truth in government circles that compelling longer amounts of school is good for people; that making children stay in educational institutions more time is ‘for their own good’. Krueger is now an assistant Treasury Secretary, and Angrist is writing books about verifiable social measurements.

“Variation in education that is related to season of birth arises because some individuals, by accident of date of birth, are forced to attend school longer than others because of compulsory schooling. . . .

Our results provide support for the view that students who are compelled to attend school longer by compulsory schooling laws earn higher wages as a result of their extra schooling.” —Does Compulsory School Attendance Affect Schooling and Earnings? Joshua Angrist & Alan Krueger; emphasis in original

Yet the foundation of their studies is rotten. Angrist and Krueger assumed the backgrounds of children born in the winter are the same as children born in other seasons; therefore something external happens to ‘winter-babies’ that accounts for poor outcomes.

Then, a gigantic “Oops!” when a couple of other researchers found a single overlooked factor . . . the babies’ mothers.

While researching sibling behavior, Daniel Hungerman noticed that families tended to have seasonal births. Unrelated to that, Kasey Buckles —in an office across the hall from Hungerman— was investigating multiple births, and found an apparent pattern between birth seasonality and mothers’ education.

While chatting together, the two realized they may have found a significant answer to “Why ‘winter-babies’ have poor outcomes”. After reviewing data on almost every US birth over a dozen years they found an answer: ‘Winter babies’ have statistically poorer and more disadvantaged outcomes because they have statistically poorer and more disadvantaged beginnings.

The percentage of babies born to teenage, unwed, teenage, and high-school dropout mothers peaks in January every year. We know (statistically) that children of teenage mothers do less well in school, have poorer health, lower incomes, and reduced lifespans compared to the general population. We know the same is (statistically) true of children of unwed mothers, and the same is also true (statistically) of HS dropout mothers. Yet all three factors coincide and peak in January of each year.

When economics giant Daniel Hamermesh selected Buckles and Hungerman’s paper for an upcoming conference presentation he said

“I love the paper. It means you have to think about things more than you want to think.”

It also means people —or the government— shouldn’t act on the basis of assumed facts.

Conservation is generally a good thing, whether it’s conserving energy, material, or water. So I was pleased by this card on water conservation distributed by DCWASA; the DC Water and Sewer Authority. The handout had tips to find and repair water leaks, along with simple explanations of plumbing. The brochure even had some leak-detecting dye tablets attached, for determining if a toilet tank is leaking into the bowl.

What really caught my eye was a chart of household water leakage and the corresponding monthly gallons from each type of leak. From steady drips to streams, the amount of water wasted by leaks can add up to a lot of water in a month.

At the low end, the pamphlet lists 100 drops a minute. That shouldn’t be considered ‘slow’ in my opinion, but it isn’t extremely fast either; it’s the the tempo of disco’s Staying Alive.

But the Water Authority’s point about leaks is valid, a small trickle —over time— can add up to a lot. Except . . . . well, except when it’s DCWASA itself; then the amount of lost water and sheer waste dwarfs any losses caused by consumers.

There is May 06, 2008, where a 20-inch main, three separate 8-inch mains, a 16-inch main in SE, and a 6-inch connector all broke. More water was lost that one day than if every household in the District left a faucet running wide-open for five months.

The same year on November 25, one 16-inch main line, a 12-inch, and an eight-inch main all broke; eleven million gallons per minute were wasted until those three breaks were repaired.

Then in December, 135 million gallons per minute — so much water, so fast it carried boulders away and knocked cars around. One month later, another 25 million gallons per minute was flooding streets.

In the end, the waste of drinking water is primarily caused by the DC Water and Sewer Authority and its aging infrastructure, not it’s consumers.

This is important to Virginians —and vitally important to those in the Shenandoah Valley— because we get penalized for the District’s failure. Washington DC is the driving force behind EPA and DEQ regulations imposed on Valley farms and towns.

Under the guise of ‘Save the Bay’, strict controls on water quality have been ordered in the Shenandoah Valley, yet little (if anything) has been done to upgrade Washington’s failing overflowing sewer plants that discharge back into Chesapeake Bay. It appears the true purpose of ‘pollution’ mandates on Virginians has been to reduce or minimize the District’s water treatment costs at its intakes.

When water is wasted and lost by the very people charged with its care and distribution, those who kept the water pure at its source here in the Shenandoah Valley should be upset and demand better handling from metropolitan users. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regulations reduce pollutants, but also act as limits on growth; not just population, but restrictions on new industry, economic opportunity, and increased agriculture.

There is a cost —a real and human cost— when water drips from a District faucet, and that cost multiplies when the water spews from negligence or disrepair of pipe infrastructure.

Dr. Norman E. Borlaug
March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009

Norman Borlaug, food crop agronomist, humanitarian, Nobel laureate, and father of the ‘Green Revolution’, has died. Borlaug’s remarkable lifetime efforts fed millions of less fortunate around the world and continue to inspire everyone concerned with hunger and malnutrition.

Dr. Borlaug’s favorite saying was “Reach for the stars. You will never touch them, but you may get a little ‘star dust’ on your hands.” Indeed. His legacy includes billions of lives saved from the horror of starvation.

Norman Borlaug not only developed highly productive crops, but assured that small, third-world farmers had access to markets, agricultural knowledge, machinery and credit, fertilizers, and food storage. That in turn increased demand for machine production, education, roads, electricity, health care, and the whole range of infrastructure needed for modern civilization. Borlaug literally changed the world.

Borlaug’s accomplishments in multiplying food crop productivity earned him the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize in addition to a host of other awards and recognitions for his lifetime of devotion to feeding the earth.

Borlaug’s wife, Margaret Gibson Borlaug, preceded him in March 2007. At the loss, I extend my condolences to his daughter Jeanie Borlaug Laube and her husband Rex; son William Gibson Borlaug and his wife Barbie; and to his five grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Peace be with you.

Borlaug’s success led to other results —‘farmland loss’ from unneeded and marginal farms, increased national park and monument areas, increased suburbanization and ‘sprawl’, even illegal immigration from countries whose populations no longer starve to death. That Norman Borlaug was successful, and we failed to prepare for or deal with these results, is not his fault.

One consequence of Borlaug’s work is almost all of our nation lives in urban areas insulated from agricultural reality. Less than two percent of Americans has a clue about our sustenance; what makes food, where it comes form, what is required, or how it is produced.

Many people remember but few can connect the actuality to the words, “Give us this day our daily bread”. For most of the world, Norman E. Borlaug’s work —his lifetime— was an answer to that prayer.

.
MORE:
Norman Borlaug –Wikipedia
Billions Served –Reason Magazine
The Man Who Saved More Human Lives –Reason Magazine
Forgotten Benefactor of Humanity –The Atlantic
Norman Borlaug: The Legend –AgBio World