21–30 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure https://xkcd.com/1138/ is relevant.
It correlates.
Just in case anyone ever needs come correlation resources :).
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
Reminds me of one of the prototypical sociological study examples of correlation vs causation where something akin to icecream sales correlated highly with murder rates. The fact air pollution, in many cases, directly correlates with population density, make the results seem less surprising. It would be more interesting if less populated areas with high air pollution (perhaps near industrial plants, etc.) had a high…
Lead fucks people up. Always has, always will. Pretty easy to trace a relationship between lead concentrations and societal disfunction.
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
You'd think it would be fairly easy to control for population density. However the study abstract indicates the only other confounding variable they controlled for was 'temperature'. EDIT: And the link between cities and higher crime seems to be well known and well studied. Here's what a quick google turns up: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/250109?seq=1#metadata_i...
So yes the incidence of cancer was higher in that area, but as soon as you controlled for population density, that effect disappeared.
Stuck with me as the 'most dangerous place' was a group of flats near the house I lived in at that time. I guessed it might be due to population density and was relived to find that was the case some time later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somebody posts this every single time any statistical study is published, regardless of whether the study actually contains a claim or causation of not.
That may well be true. In this case, the link was to an article, not a study. The article clearly implies causation.
> Correlation is not causation of course (there may, for example, be a third variable affecting both pollution and crime) and the authors are cautious not to speculate about the precise mechanism by which contaminated air might lead to more rapes or robberies.
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
I think it would be very hard to isolate these factors into a "clean" study.
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
You'd think it would be fairly easy to control for population density. However the study abstract indicates the only other confounding variable they controlled for was 'temperature'. EDIT: And the link between cities and higher crime seems to be well known and well studied. Here's what a quick google turns up: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/250109?seq=1#metadata_i...
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
The main problem I see with this study is that it could be confounded by the fact that high air pollution areas have other problems too that could be causing the bad behaviour instead, like overcrowding, noise, frustration at slow traffic, etc.
Or that low income areas with higher crime in general have less money to buy new and efficient/clean cars so the pollution rises. I think it would be very hard to isolate these factors into a "clean" study.
I'd wager the ones with the pollution are going to eat each other's faces at a much higher rate than those without.
For giggles and to test some fall of Rome hypotheses, run a 3rd cage where the water comes through lead pipes.