h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

FAE is another commonly used acronym, and appears to have much in common with the FASD mentioned.

The timing of the alcohol consumption can have a tremendous impact on the amount and type of damage sustained by the fetus, as can whether binging is involved -- talking about average drinks per week is useful for research, but VERY misleading when talking about what's safe for individual people.

My doc and midwife both recommended a maximum of two units a week, but I find that one is more than enough. In fact, I find I've gone off alcohol and it takes me three times as long to drink say, a glass of wine than it normally would.

"In 1997, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists conducted a large study including 400,000 American women..."

Is this the UK Royal College? It's just that I find it hard to believe there'd be a Royal College in the US

The sources listed are a bit off, as well -- if you're going to cite a medical study and give a reference, it's generally considered best to cite the actual study rather than one of the many review articles that happens to discuss the study.

Sorry -- I know it's annoying to get this feedback after an entry has made the front page, but I didn't come across this one while it was in PR.

However, articles can still be amended

Mikey, first of all I do state that one drink per day is the reccomended maximum, as well as stating that greater consumption in single instances is not reccomended. I quoted specific studies when referring specific statistics which came from those studies or when quoting. And you're right, I could have used this kind of comment when this piece sat in PR.

Fords, yes it was the UK Royal College, they just used US women in the study. I have no earthly idea why.

*realises he has not only misspelled recommended twice in his last post but actually once in the piece...*

The actual sentence that specifically mentions binge drinking or specific levels per instance rather than per week is in reference to the Goodlett and Peterson study of binge drinking using lab rats: *Negative effects appear to be related to higher blood alcohol content levels (greater consumption in single instances)*

The part about the study with 400K women quotes a guidelines report by Wilkie et al in the footnote -- that's not the original study, that's a review article in the context of guidelines.

As far as the timing thing, I wasn't just talking about the difference between binging/slowly but also the fact that drinking in the first trimester is hugely different than drinking in the 3rd, in terms of the amount of alcohol that needs to be consumed for a deleterious effect, in terms of the risks of defect given consumption, and in terms of the types of defects seen.

I know it's especially harmful in the first trimester as the placenta hasn't formed, which absorbs a lot of bad stuff. But I still wouldn't do it anyway

My apologies, the Wilkie reference was the only one I could find online about that particular study. I must admit that as a scholar I am a particularly good sailor.

The first trimester danger was covered in the final paragraph, was it confusing?

Sorry, I meant to continue. I could find no studies that asked the question *Did you drink excessively in the first trimester?*, those that addressed the question were lab studies. In the field, the fact that the mother drank was the primary concern and indeed in the isolated communities and First Nations villages the drinking was generally through all three trimesters, often to excess.

It's a bit of a misconception to the public that there are "safe" and "unsafe" times to drink during pregnancy -- many women erroneously believe that the first month doesn't matter, or that the 2nd-3rd trimester doesn't matter. The real point worth making is that there are real risks at every trimester, but for *different* defects.

The FAS you see in children whose mothers only drank during the first trimester is a very different FAS than what you see when the drinking mostly occurs during the late 2nd trimester.

Some of the better studies that have looked at this have utilized the unfortunately plentiful resource of pregnant women who are imprisoned for part of their pregnancy, making alcohol consumption incredibly difficult.

My goal was to increase awareness and hopefully in the last paragraph provide some of the diverse guidelines and recommendations (let's see...one *c*, two *m*s, that's it!) for *safe* consumption. As the final sentence says, most *front line* care givers have a zero tolerance for the entire pregnancy. The fact that Royal College found few or no instances of FAS in their study which had some consumption would indicate that the elusive *magic number* has not been agreed on by all. I wish I had had the time and resources to research this complex subject completely but I didn't and don't. If you would like to add to or change any statement made, be my guest.

Just a small note for those suggesting changes:

It is important to post your suggestions to a thread such as this, attached to the Edited Entry, but if you actually think the entry needs to be changed, your suggestion should also be posted to Editorial Feedback A388334 , probably with a link back to the present thread: F1845252?thread=450932 so that the editors can see the discussion of your suggestions.

Actually, Editorial Feedback is really only for the minor tidbit or typo kind of edits. Anything involving proposed changes in actual *content* is really supposed to go through the Update Forum -- it's possible that this one might eventually reach that point, although I don't see it happening soon. When it does, however, these threads are the first place we look from the Update Forum.

Believe me, I have some experience in this area....

By all means, create another entry with the heading FAE or FAS or FASD. It would be the first choice of the search engine anyway since the title I chose doesn't include those acronyms. I'm actually surprised you haven't started one since your knowledge obviously exceeds mine and seems more current.

very interesting article revealing hazards for future generations because now it is fashionable to drink

How's that revision coming?

I have many, many other entries on my plate before I'd have time to get to this one. Virtually all entries in the EG will need updating at some point -- either to correct errors or to add additional information. The usual process is to more or less slowly collect that additional information and/or errata in the threads at the bottom of the entry (as is happening here), and then take the entry through the Update Forum when either enough material has been compiled to make it worthwhile, or when a researcher who has sufficient time on their hands for the job feels it must be done right away. h2g2 simply doesn't have the manpower to go and update entries the minute these things are discovered -- in part because there are so few researchers engaged in updating, and those of us that are also are trying to keep up with Peer Review and volunteer positions, not to mention writing our own guide entries. The bulk of EG entries I've updated have actually been 4-5 years old, although I've done 1 or 2 newer ones as well.

Forgive me, but there has been little or no *additional information and/or errata* provided on this thread other than the proposed inclusion of *FAE* as a an additional acronym and the indirect quote of a study. All you've said is what you know, which is nothing specific.