The Trash-Site Safety Council concludes here that there is no public-health reason to
restrict the size of
Trash sites or their proximity to homes.The Council cites its recent
statewide
study involving five sites and 300 people; in the study the Council observed
only a small correlation between the residents'' proximity to a trash site and
unexplained rashes, and only a "slightly higher incidence" of rashes among people
living near larger sites.The study suffers from certain statistical and other problems,
which render the Council''s argument based upon it unpersuasive.
First, the Council has not convinced me that the five sites in the survey are
representative of trash sites in general throughout the state-in terms of their impact
on the
health of nearby residents. Admittedly, the study was a "statewide" one.
Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that the five sites
studied are characterized by
certain environmental
conditions that are not typical of most sites in the state and
that render nearby residents either more or less susceptible to rashes and other
health problems.
Secondly, the 300 people in the study are not necessarily representative of the
state''s general population-in terms of their susceptibility to health problems. For
example, perhaps nearly all of these people are adults, while most of the health prob
lems associated with trash sites occur among children. Or perhaps preventative healthcare
programs in these particular communities are unusually effective in preventing
health problems. In short, lacking evidence that these 300 people are typical in terms
of their vulnerability to health
problems the Council cannot convince me that no
statewide trash-site regulations are needed.
Thirdly, the Council''s conclusion that the five sites studied pose no serious health
hazards to nearby residents seems premature. Common sense informs me that a serious
health problem might become apparent only after a long period of exposure to
the environmental cause of the problem.The Council fails to take into account the
length of time these residents have been exposed to the conditions created by the
trash sites; and in any event, one "recent" study amounts to scant evidence that the
sites pose no significant long-term public-health hazards.
In sum, the Council''s argument is unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it the
Council must provide better evidence that the environmental conditions at the five
sites studied represent conditions at trash sites throughout the state, and that the 300
people studied are representative of state residents generally in terms of vulnerability
to health problems.To better assess the argument I would need more information
comparing the health of the 300 people studied before and after continual exposure
to the environmental conditions associated with the trash sites. I would also need to
know the length of the study to determine whether it adequately accounted for latent
health problems.
More abstracts about the Garbage sites and the health of nearby residents