Tom's River Blog

Group: What did you learn about Tom's River? What did you think was most important? Was there enough evidence to reach the decision they made?

Solo: Do a follow up on Chongqing, China or in any other area in the world. Search up statistics about cancer clusters in this area. Present your findings and your ideas on what the statistics mean. Is there enough evidence to prove these cancer clusters?  

Comments

  1. Walt WynkoopSeptember 19, 2019 at 6:43 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vilma Urquiza ValleSeptember 19, 2019 at 6:47 AM

    Group 3:

    One of the things our group discussed was that there is the chance that policy makers hide under the scientific uncertainty as an excuse to not do anything to fix the problem. The amount of time that it took for them to realize that there were cancer clusters shows how scientific uncertainty can protect policymakers. It was also important that there weren't many consequences for the water contamination, and the only result was the settlements. Some members of our group thought that there was enough evidence of cancer clusters, and others did not. Conducting studies closer to the time when the waste was being dumped would have given more evidence to prove whether or not the cancer was a direct result of contaminated water.

    ReplyDelete
  3. aidan cocoSeptember 19, 2019 at 6:47 AM

    Group 2

    Our group discussed how it is tough to determine causation. Obviously childhood cancer has a bit of a shock factor, which is probably part of why the study got funded in the first place. We talked about how hard it is for the public to engage with statistical evidence, especially on emotional issues. We thought the payout was just however because there was serious pollution either way. Hopefully as time goes on, our methods for finding causation for these cancer clusters will improve.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousSeptember 19, 2019 at 6:47 AM

    Scientific uncertainty highlights the the gap of knowledge between the public and scientists, especially in cases such as Tom's River that have high stakes, in which the data collected and conclusions reached has a significant impact on people's emotions. When a study finds that environmental issues, which are extremely difficult to change due to the impossibility of completely de-contaminating, are causing serious health issues such as cancer, people tend to react more strongly, even if they don't completely understand the study or the data itself. This is why it is important to understand the presence of scientific uncertainty, so that people have a better understanding of the context of statistical analysis and know how to interpret science.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Group 2

Ocean acidification is important because it impacts biodiversity. A falling ph level has detrimental impacts on species that build shells or skeleton based on carbonate. For example, tropical corals. Hence ocean acidification destroys ecosystems, resulting in the ultimate disappearance of certain species. The computer generated evidence predicts that if the carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise exponentially, this will result in the drastic increase in the ocean ph level. The levels of PH are predicted to rise as much as they have in the past 300 million years in the next 1000 years. The computer models used past historical and geographical evidence to see what the natural rise would be and compared it to the rate at which ph levels are rising today. It would be difficult for nature to compensate for these damages. Consequently, resulting in further reduction on the marine biodiversity, specifically, coral reefs. Aidan Coco Grace Miske Jingyi Li Ling Zheng
Read more
Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
Read more