Hacker News Reader

Comment by akira2501 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> estimate something that you can absolutely just DIRECTLY measure.

Sure, you can track people over 70 years, follow up to see if they die from cancer, and then record the result. But then, everyone affected is already dead.

We already know how certain chemicals affect people, and because of that, we can protect people before they die of environmental issues. That's the point of the EPA. Not simply to measure problems after they happen.

These models certainly do not assume the only measurable effects will occur after 70 years. Most of these facilities have been emitting at or above their current levels for decades. If there’s no measurable effect on population health, that suggests the EPA is overestimating risk.

In any event, I’m surprised/not-surprised that PP doesn’t take a pass at explaining why they’re not even looking at actual disease data.

The darkest red areas are significantly worse, 1 in 210 in some spots.

Indeed, if these are actually “hot spots” for cancer justifying the scary coloration and risk factor #’s, it shouldn’t be beyond the investigative skills of Propublica to assess the epidemiological data, where surely these locations also stick out like sore thumbs?

this is not about the climate, why are you even bringing that up?

you just equivocated / moved the goalposts on that climate comment. are you a software engineer at Union Carbide?

also would you point out an example of ProPublica being as grossly unscientific as you claim? i'll wait

Reply on news.ycombinator.com