
Why Geographic Clusters Are Impossible to Prove - ChuckMcM
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/07/29/geographic-cancer-clusters-industrial-polluters-481423.html
======
ChuckMcM
I read this and was struck by this paragraph:

 _According to an inventory Duke Energy filed with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for 2010, the [Coal power] plant released more than
800,000 pounds of toxic pollutants into the air, as well as 32,000 pounds of
arsenic, 7,333 pounds of chromium, 4,000 pounds of cobalt and other toxic
heavy metals into the pond, all of which residents worry is seeping into the
groundwater. This is especially significant in Belews Creek, where many locals
rely on wells for their drinking water._

And think, _this_ is the preferable to nuclear power? Of course it isn't, but
people don't often get thrown in their face just how damaging coal fired
plants are to their environment _when properly operated!_

~~~
Kenji
Coal is one of the nastiest, polluting, disgusting ways to produce
electricity. Often, it's even the case that burning coal leaves a radioactive
slag (because of materials that came with the coal while mining) so that a
coal powerplant has radioactive waste too!

------
xxr
>A 2007 study by University of Michigan researchers seemed to back Gesell up,
showing those living within 2 miles of the Field Laboratory were 60 percent
more likely to be stricken with cancers of the thyroid, upper digestive tract,
bladder, blood and lymph tissue than those who lived more than 5 miles away.

What's the likelihood that a randomly selected geographic point in the U.S.
will yield that same contrast of 60%?

------
tlb
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?

~~~
niftich
Naively, 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
Which 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.

