3 ms·
The difficulty of analyzing clusters suggests a strategy for polluters. You could estimate, for any given area, how much increased cancer risk would be hard to
by tlb 10y ago
The difficulty of analyzing clusters suggests a strategy for polluters. You could estimate, for any given area, how much increased cancer risk would be hard to distinguish from confounding factors. Areas with distinctive socioeconomic or racial groups, or pre-existing polluters, or elevated background radiation have obvious confounds so it'll be harder in the future to show a causal link from any particular polluter's operations. Also, areas with transient populations or with a cultural aversion to health care make it difficult to prove that pollution causes problems.
I think it's already true that US polluters tend to operate in such regions. Do people know if the above theory is known and applied, or if they operate in such regions just because land and labor is cheap?
- pkkim 10y agoCould be both, too. I'd also be interested in seeing the correlation between the political power that poor and/or non-white communities have in the area, and the likelihood that they get stuck with such things in their neighborhoods. Anecdotally I've heard stories from the days of widespread highway construction, when both rich, white and poor, black neighborhoods were supposed to get highways built right through their neighborhoods, but only the former managed to lobby successfully against them.
- niftich 10y agoNaively, the poorest people are the least able to uproot and move somewhere else, so if you put a NIMBY like a coal power plant near them, everyone who can afford to leave will move away, leaving only the poorest. Furthermore, the presence of the power plant will drive property values down, placing it higher on the afforability list for people that are poor and in the market for property. Give some time for these two factors to play out, and you'll only have poor people living next to a power plant even if it didn't always start off that way.
- maxerickson 10y agoWhich is still sort of outrageous in a quite empty place like the US. The people consuming the energy should be paying for a nice setback from the power plant. I guess a complicating factor is that access to water makes it easier to run a power plant and is also something desirable for residential areas. I'm sitting about 2 miles from a now shuttered coal plant. So is about 1/3 of the population of the county, because the towns developed by the water, before electrification.