Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

Hey, you were paying attention in middle school statistics, good for you.

Now let's actually read the article, shall we?

Three years after the facility shut down, pediatric asthma visits to emergency departments were down 41.2% when compared to where they were three years before its closure, the researchers found. Among the general population, there was a 20.5% drop in weekly respiratory visits. The study also found long-term declines in hospital visits for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is caused by inflammation in the lungs.

This goes beyond just correlation. A source of pollutants "known" to cause those kinds of symptoms was shut down and those symptoms largely decreased. Which gets to

The study described plant closures as "natural experiments" that can offer more conclusive results than studies that rely on ambient air pollution with varying source of toxic compounds. The authors noted that coke plants produce especially potent emissions that cause inflammatory responses in the lungs.

Believe it or not, they ALSO know that they don't have the required rigor to make a conclusive statement. In large part because the actual experiments required to confirm this, scientifically, are pretty gosh darned unethical. But when we have these kinds of "natural experiments", we can observe and make very strong hypotheses.

Which all gets to the problem of scientists trying to convey information. We believe in proper studies and the scientific method. The audience will either scream "fake news" or, as you yourself demonstrated, attempt to be snarky while mostly demonstrating a similar lack of understanding of what is even being said.