Diamond4Hands4Ever t1_iym1kq8 wrote
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but for studies like this, how do you account for positive selection bias? Like people who choose to live in certain areas with higher concentration of air pollution might also have some kind of unobserved characteristic correlated to long-term physical and mental health conditions. I don’t know what one pathway would be, but maybe it could be job related. For example, a miner might choose to live in an area with worse air condition due to their job. That job also then causes physical problems. So the causal pathway is the job, not the actual air pollution.
hepakrese t1_iym4h9e wrote
The exploits of mining specifically are far more broadly reaching than the interior of a mine or quarry where the worker is. It pollutes the land, air, and water in the community and that affects everyone in the area regardless of whether they work in the mine. Further, the guise of choice does a lot of heavy lifting in your query, when one may not be able to afford to live anywhere else; the community may not have other jobs, and saying nothing of underage children who don't have the luxury of 'choice.'
As such, you cannot limit the study simply to the people who 'choose' to work and live there, and the very premise of choice itself is flawed.
The same can be said for traffic congested areas.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments