Geez, that was verbose.
The report shows SIDS as down overall but it looks like many
that would have been SIDS would likely fall into other new
categories. (Actual number may be no better or worse, just
reported differently.)

I'm a little rusty on my stats.
Did anybody see anything that puts the ""abnormalities""
outside of "standard deviation"?

While I agree that the standouts should be studied more,
and the smoking thing looks like a big problem,
I am not sure how I'd like living in some zone that
the government is targeting.

Getting infant mortality down is laudible, but will some
millions of dollars be spent to push infant mortality from
..001 to .0001 per thousand? At what point do we accept
some tiny percent as natural and acceptable? Or will
infant mortality become another bottomless pit sacred cow
for government waste, because it's heart rending?

While they blamed smoking, they didn't mention the
effects of groundwater contamination or the "Love Canal"
or "Brown Fields" toxicity.

Good idea! Make caseworkers shovel dioxin tainted soil
into portable incinerators to improve our quality of life.

How's this playing in the "targeted" counties?