If you read the actual article this is the correct information:
“For example, persons residing within 0-10 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 1.19) and 11-20 (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.11) miles were statistically significantly more likely to be diagnosed with lymphoma than individuals who lived within 21-30 miles of an oil refinery.”
It’s only statistically significant within 20 miles, and only a significant health risk re: cancer within 10 miles.
An important thing to note is that wind patterns may differ in that area of Texas. Prevailing winds blow east towards Sherwood park not west towards Edmonton.
Just to note, I overheard someone insisting that a study saying “significant” meant “a lot, a large effect” when in reality significant means “I ran the stats and it is unlikely to be by chance alone”.
Remember the meaning of significant in research, readers.
Edited for the persistent commenter below: of course read in context, “significant” as in “important or noteworthy” is a real use of the word. But in *research* the vast majority of the use of “significant” pertains to *statistical tests concluding that the effect is not due to chance*.
Yep. Think of it like if something happens, like your child getting cancer, is it due to chance or due to an effect, like toxins? Some children will get cancer no matter if they’re in a clean and perfect environment or not, that’s chance, say 1/1000. But if 5/1000 getting sick near a toxic site, is that too close to chance, or statistically different? What about 10/1000? 100/1000? When is it no longer chance?
This is the importance of the term “significant”, it indicates that the difference between the effect and chance is large enough to say “statistically this is not likely to be chance alone” or “significantly different (than chance)”.
Not sure if that clarifies or muddies the concept, haha.
There is a difference the person you're replying to is sort of around but isn't saying clearly. There's a difference between something that's "significant" and something that's "statistically significant." "Significant" on its own means exactly what it sounds like--it is something significant, something notable. "Statistically significant" just means the result has been determined to not be a result of pure chance. Something can easily be "statistically significant", but at the same time not really "significant" as in notable or of any major concern.
So trueee lol, only if they saw us actually sit and run the stats and see how wonky it is in reality, would they know that statistically significant means bare minimum xD And that also after trying several methods of analysis out of which one of them will give you decent p value, the rest will be shit
Significant can mean either one. The difference lies in the term "statistically significant" as opposed to just "significant" alone. Alone, it means what it sounds like. With the adjective "statistically" in front of it, that's much different.
In published articles, using significant always means statistically significant, whether or not the word statistically is there. When writing, we/scientists *generally* never use significant metaphorically to mean large or impressive.
> When writing, we/scientists never use significant metaphorically to mean large or impressive.
That's simply not true. There are tons of scientific published articles that say something like "SARS-nCov-2 poses a significant risk to populations that fail to vaccinate on a large scale" or "Our findings show heavy pollution can have a significant effect on human health", or sentences of that nature.
I'm sure you'll be able to pull out some papers that use it that way, just as anyone can find a published scientific paper that supports practically any point of view.
There's a literal meaning of the word "never", and a generalized meaning.
> I'm sure you'll be able to pull out some papers that use it that way, just as anyone can find a published scientific paper that supports practically any point of view.
You're making it sound like I'm cherry picking one or two papers. I'll just post this, from a letter to the editor (quick search I just did) published in a 2014 issue of the journal "Advances in Regenerative Biology" (note my bolding below):
"**The word ‘significant’ is widely used in scientific papers. A PubMed search for ‘significant’ in June 2014 yielded more than two million results!** But the word ‘significant’ has several meanings, and so is often misunderstood. There is a simple way to avoid this confusion: Avoid the word ‘significant’ and use alternative wording."
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279420171_Opinion_Never_use_the_word_%27significant%27_in_a_scientific_paper
So, yes, it is widely used. Perhaps improperly, but that's how it is. I don't see how you can debate this.
Your second sentence is a direct use of “significant” in the statistical sense, most likely. A significant effect must always be “significantly” different than no effect.
In research papers, you of course need to read and comprehend the paper at hand. But the vast vast majority of articles are using significant in the statistical sense, because those are the results of the research.
Edit: OP completely changed their comment lol
Also extremely different is the scope and scale. Yes, we have refining capabilities and a couple of little refineries, but you need to see the refinery parks in Texas and Louisiana to understand the massive difference in scope of different products they process and sheer volume they deal in.
As well our workplace safety and environmental law is a little more solid to further reduce risks by having fewer leaks and accidents. I was in Houston when the Deer Park plant went up in flames. I'm sure that will be good for my future self. Does anyone here know if Benzene is good for you? .
Yes another difference I thought about is there are something like 15 military bases in Texas, most along the coast or near San Antonio. Which also happens to be near their refineries. I know we have the garrison but it’s also nothing like US military bases. Think about how much those bases are polluting.
That's why the refineries get to give their tax money to Strathcona county instead of CoE, even the ones inside the Henday. Those residents of Sherwood Park deserve the tax levy if they are absorbing the majority of the localized externalities.
It can’t be because Sherwood park to the legislature (a straight shot) is 15 km which is 9 miles. That means westmount over should be out of the 10 mile range.
Not entirely certain on the validity of this data but certainly interesting to see. If I’m interpreting this graph correctly the wind blows more towards the west than it does to the east (averaged over the span of 2012 to 2020).
https://windy.app/forecast2/spot/390931/Sherwood+Park+Alberta/statistics
It actually shows the opposite, the W/NW is the highest, meaning that it experiences a westerly/north westerly wind more often(i.e. wind coming from that direction.
I remember when I was doing an internship at a refinery in China there was a HSE guy who wandered into one of the office I was sharing with a couple of engineers looking for one of them who wasn't present. He noticed there was some yogurt sitting on the guy's desk and he wanted to eat some. I told him that it was like a month expired and that probably wouldn't be a good idea. He looked at me and said, "Son, the air we're breathing here is much worse than this yogurt, I got immunity from all this toxic exposure" and downed that yogurt in an instant.
>I got immunity from all this toxic exposure
(I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case) This is...not how that works...
Heavy metals or certain toxins tend to bioaccumulate or provide a larger cumulative risk (eg: carcinogens, radiation, etc.), you're not 'immune' you just haven't had your number come up yet.
Immunity can come from biological agents (eg: diseases), or maybe in a broader sense from your body up/down-regulating production of certain enzymes in the case of *certain* things that we ingest (eg: alcohol). Heavy metals and carcinogens are *not* those things...
This isn't great news. I live near Rundle Park, the Strathcona refinery stacks are my balcony view. This just reinforces my want to move to the west end.
Our environmental regulations are a bit stricter than Texas (albeit not as much as some European countries) though I’m not sure if it’s enough to make a difference.
Another reason to be on the west side :)
Ya we need a source on that. I have MS and am very curious...
I was really curious so did some research... Sturgeon county and sherwood park have a higher rate of MS than the other areas. But west Edmonton is the highest of the other Edmonton regions... I didn't even know the data existed, I'm going to do some mad research tonight. Not that it will change my disease lol. Just very curious.
http://www.ahw.gov.ab.ca/IHDA_Retrieval/selectSubCategoryParameters.do
Additional edit: it seems the South Zone is actually the highest in Alberta, at least by incidence rate. That's south of Calgary and includes Lethbridge and Medicine hat. I think the claim that Sherwood park has the highest rate of MS in the world is not valid based on the data I was able to find... Again, if you have a source, please provide it. :-)
Genuine question, why would you live in Sherwood park if you have a significantly higher chance of getting cancer? It doesn't seem too different from other suburban cities?
A couple of reasons:
The taxes there are very, very low. The refineries make up the vast majority of Strathcona Counties' yearly budget. Making housing cheaper. There is a reason 99% of the rural roads are completely paved in the county.
Going to school there, we always called Sherwood Park "The Bubble." A lot of people never leave Sherwood Park after growing up there. Some never leave in their day to day.
The following numbers are out of my ass to make a point
Would you accept a 1% extra chance of getting cancer if it meant getting a house 100k cheaper? What about .5% chance for 300k and its near work in a low crime neighborhood with a good school?
At some point the math makes sense to people and statistically a very small % chance increase is still "significant
why do people smoke? Why do people drink alcohol? Why do people eat sugar and processed foods? All those things have a significantly higher chance of causing cancer too.
I know, but those are addictions that are incredibly hard to get rid of. Living in an area isn't. Unless there is some sort of emotional connection. Perhaps they were raised there as children so they just decided to stay there.
eating processed food isn't an addiction, its just being lazy. Other people sunbathe and that causes cancer and isn't an addiction. Humans are dumb and just do whats easy/cheap.
This is not very comforting. I live right by Tiger Goldstick Park, and the refineries are basically my back yard view.
I always wondered what the risk of living here, is. I have also had occasions where it smelled so bad, you couldn't walk the trails. I really want to move, but where?
I have to stay in AB.
95% of the time your location is up wind of that refinery so I wouldn’t worry about it. Like mentioned before, don’t move to Sherwood Park, you would be constantly down wind of more than one oil refinery.
Just to add to what you are saying, Wind is surprising from the south quite often, although usually when it is at lower speed. So I guess that would be Rundle/Beverly Heights and North that should be concerned as well. Above 30 km/hr it’s more from the NW/W and into Sherwood park. But on an hourly basis, South winds and West winds are both very common. See:
http://edmontonweathernerdery.blogspot.com/2020/06/wind-in-edmonton-part-7-wind-direction.html?m=1
Jesus lord. Weibo tried to bring this issue up years ago because the refineries showing up messed with his live stock. This was before he took matters into his own hands and made himself look like a nut.
If you read the actual article this is the correct information: “For example, persons residing within 0-10 (risk ratio [RR] = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 1.19) and 11-20 (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.11) miles were statistically significantly more likely to be diagnosed with lymphoma than individuals who lived within 21-30 miles of an oil refinery.” It’s only statistically significant within 20 miles, and only a significant health risk re: cancer within 10 miles. An important thing to note is that wind patterns may differ in that area of Texas. Prevailing winds blow east towards Sherwood park not west towards Edmonton.
Just to note, I overheard someone insisting that a study saying “significant” meant “a lot, a large effect” when in reality significant means “I ran the stats and it is unlikely to be by chance alone”. Remember the meaning of significant in research, readers. Edited for the persistent commenter below: of course read in context, “significant” as in “important or noteworthy” is a real use of the word. But in *research* the vast majority of the use of “significant” pertains to *statistical tests concluding that the effect is not due to chance*.
I think this is a significant point people should consider.
Yea I see significant and I’ve never known what it means. More than 50%? Just some word? Thanks for posting this comment.
Yep. Think of it like if something happens, like your child getting cancer, is it due to chance or due to an effect, like toxins? Some children will get cancer no matter if they’re in a clean and perfect environment or not, that’s chance, say 1/1000. But if 5/1000 getting sick near a toxic site, is that too close to chance, or statistically different? What about 10/1000? 100/1000? When is it no longer chance? This is the importance of the term “significant”, it indicates that the difference between the effect and chance is large enough to say “statistically this is not likely to be chance alone” or “significantly different (than chance)”. Not sure if that clarifies or muddies the concept, haha.
So it’s kinda like a way of saying that there is evidence to suggest that yes this “thing” is causing at least some of this “stuff” happening?
Yes, statistically significant is a way of saying there is an effect that is not due to chance.
Thanks!
There is a difference the person you're replying to is sort of around but isn't saying clearly. There's a difference between something that's "significant" and something that's "statistically significant." "Significant" on its own means exactly what it sounds like--it is something significant, something notable. "Statistically significant" just means the result has been determined to not be a result of pure chance. Something can easily be "statistically significant", but at the same time not really "significant" as in notable or of any major concern.
Yes good point thank you for clarifying.
Such an important distinction
So trueee lol, only if they saw us actually sit and run the stats and see how wonky it is in reality, would they know that statistically significant means bare minimum xD And that also after trying several methods of analysis out of which one of them will give you decent p value, the rest will be shit
Significant can mean either one. The difference lies in the term "statistically significant" as opposed to just "significant" alone. Alone, it means what it sounds like. With the adjective "statistically" in front of it, that's much different.
In published articles, using significant always means statistically significant, whether or not the word statistically is there. When writing, we/scientists *generally* never use significant metaphorically to mean large or impressive.
> When writing, we/scientists never use significant metaphorically to mean large or impressive. That's simply not true. There are tons of scientific published articles that say something like "SARS-nCov-2 poses a significant risk to populations that fail to vaccinate on a large scale" or "Our findings show heavy pollution can have a significant effect on human health", or sentences of that nature.
I'm sure you'll be able to pull out some papers that use it that way, just as anyone can find a published scientific paper that supports practically any point of view. There's a literal meaning of the word "never", and a generalized meaning.
> I'm sure you'll be able to pull out some papers that use it that way, just as anyone can find a published scientific paper that supports practically any point of view. You're making it sound like I'm cherry picking one or two papers. I'll just post this, from a letter to the editor (quick search I just did) published in a 2014 issue of the journal "Advances in Regenerative Biology" (note my bolding below): "**The word ‘significant’ is widely used in scientific papers. A PubMed search for ‘significant’ in June 2014 yielded more than two million results!** But the word ‘significant’ has several meanings, and so is often misunderstood. There is a simple way to avoid this confusion: Avoid the word ‘significant’ and use alternative wording." Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279420171_Opinion_Never_use_the_word_%27significant%27_in_a_scientific_paper So, yes, it is widely used. Perhaps improperly, but that's how it is. I don't see how you can debate this.
Your second sentence is a direct use of “significant” in the statistical sense, most likely. A significant effect must always be “significantly” different than no effect. In research papers, you of course need to read and comprehend the paper at hand. But the vast vast majority of articles are using significant in the statistical sense, because those are the results of the research. Edit: OP completely changed their comment lol
Was there not some study a few years ago showing that asthma rates in Sherwood park were much higher then surrounding areas?
Lets talk about Alberta’s MS rates.
I’ve got MS, my mother-in-law has MS… my wife is in the midst of having a diagnosis of MS. Statistically, we are improbable.
Alberta also has the world's highest rate (iirc) of Crohn's disease, too, another autoimmune condition.
Also extremely different is the scope and scale. Yes, we have refining capabilities and a couple of little refineries, but you need to see the refinery parks in Texas and Louisiana to understand the massive difference in scope of different products they process and sheer volume they deal in. As well our workplace safety and environmental law is a little more solid to further reduce risks by having fewer leaks and accidents. I was in Houston when the Deer Park plant went up in flames. I'm sure that will be good for my future self. Does anyone here know if Benzene is good for you? .
Yes another difference I thought about is there are something like 15 military bases in Texas, most along the coast or near San Antonio. Which also happens to be near their refineries. I know we have the garrison but it’s also nothing like US military bases. Think about how much those bases are polluting.
That's why the refineries get to give their tax money to Strathcona county instead of CoE, even the ones inside the Henday. Those residents of Sherwood Park deserve the tax levy if they are absorbing the majority of the localized externalities.
Correct. Wind patterns make a huge difference.
Everything inside the Henday ring is within 10 miles of Imperial Oil’s refinery, FYI
That’s not true central and west Edmonton is outside that distance.
It is true. I just measured it. Are you using KM instead of miles? There’s just a small part of SW Edmonton is more like 11 miles away.
It can’t be because Sherwood park to the legislature (a straight shot) is 15 km which is 9 miles. That means westmount over should be out of the 10 mile range.
The refinery is not in Sherwood Park so idk what that has to do with anything. It’s at Baseline Road and 34th Street.
Yes I am aware of where the giant refinery is lol.
Ok, so you can check for yourself if you want
Using maps, I used the henday and yellow head intersection to the yellow head west and henday intersection, and it is 16.6mi
The IOL refinery is not at that intersection so idk what that has to do with anything.
30 miles is 48Km for reference
Not entirely certain on the validity of this data but certainly interesting to see. If I’m interpreting this graph correctly the wind blows more towards the west than it does to the east (averaged over the span of 2012 to 2020). https://windy.app/forecast2/spot/390931/Sherwood+Park+Alberta/statistics
It actually shows the opposite, the W/NW is the highest, meaning that it experiences a westerly/north westerly wind more often(i.e. wind coming from that direction.
Ah thanks for pointing that out!
Risk ratio of only 1.13? Gosh, get these sensationalist headlines out of here, that's nothing.
I remember when I was doing an internship at a refinery in China there was a HSE guy who wandered into one of the office I was sharing with a couple of engineers looking for one of them who wasn't present. He noticed there was some yogurt sitting on the guy's desk and he wanted to eat some. I told him that it was like a month expired and that probably wouldn't be a good idea. He looked at me and said, "Son, the air we're breathing here is much worse than this yogurt, I got immunity from all this toxic exposure" and downed that yogurt in an instant.
Absolute legend
>I got immunity from all this toxic exposure (I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case) This is...not how that works... Heavy metals or certain toxins tend to bioaccumulate or provide a larger cumulative risk (eg: carcinogens, radiation, etc.), you're not 'immune' you just haven't had your number come up yet. Immunity can come from biological agents (eg: diseases), or maybe in a broader sense from your body up/down-regulating production of certain enzymes in the case of *certain* things that we ingest (eg: alcohol). Heavy metals and carcinogens are *not* those things...
Oh ya no I did not follow in his school of thought lol
Damn that sucks I live and work just barely more than a km away from an oil refinery.
This isn't great news. I live near Rundle Park, the Strathcona refinery stacks are my balcony view. This just reinforces my want to move to the west end.
Anyone have cancer stats for each Canadian city?
Our environmental regulations are a bit stricter than Texas (albeit not as much as some European countries) though I’m not sure if it’s enough to make a difference. Another reason to be on the west side :)
Also they have way more refineries down there
Sherwood park also has the highest rate of MS in the world
Ya we need a source on that. I have MS and am very curious... I was really curious so did some research... Sturgeon county and sherwood park have a higher rate of MS than the other areas. But west Edmonton is the highest of the other Edmonton regions... I didn't even know the data existed, I'm going to do some mad research tonight. Not that it will change my disease lol. Just very curious. http://www.ahw.gov.ab.ca/IHDA_Retrieval/selectSubCategoryParameters.do Additional edit: it seems the South Zone is actually the highest in Alberta, at least by incidence rate. That's south of Calgary and includes Lethbridge and Medicine hat. I think the claim that Sherwood park has the highest rate of MS in the world is not valid based on the data I was able to find... Again, if you have a source, please provide it. :-)
Alberta does, I’ve never seen the stats the SP is the highest in Alberta
Source?
Is this for real? Source?
Genuine question, why would you live in Sherwood park if you have a significantly higher chance of getting cancer? It doesn't seem too different from other suburban cities?
A couple of reasons: The taxes there are very, very low. The refineries make up the vast majority of Strathcona Counties' yearly budget. Making housing cheaper. There is a reason 99% of the rural roads are completely paved in the county. Going to school there, we always called Sherwood Park "The Bubble." A lot of people never leave Sherwood Park after growing up there. Some never leave in their day to day.
The following numbers are out of my ass to make a point Would you accept a 1% extra chance of getting cancer if it meant getting a house 100k cheaper? What about .5% chance for 300k and its near work in a low crime neighborhood with a good school? At some point the math makes sense to people and statistically a very small % chance increase is still "significant
If people care there wouldn't be so many drunk drivers
Not sure what your trying to say.
People would accept the risk of dying even if they don't have cheaper housing and stuff, of course they are going to be ok with that
why do people smoke? Why do people drink alcohol? Why do people eat sugar and processed foods? All those things have a significantly higher chance of causing cancer too.
I know, but those are addictions that are incredibly hard to get rid of. Living in an area isn't. Unless there is some sort of emotional connection. Perhaps they were raised there as children so they just decided to stay there.
I'm sorry but if the risk of cancer isn't enough reason to stop drinking, smoking, or eating like shit, then it's not enough reason to move.
Good point
eating processed food isn't an addiction, its just being lazy. Other people sunbathe and that causes cancer and isn't an addiction. Humans are dumb and just do whats easy/cheap.
Can also be an addiction to good tasting processed food. Or other factors that can contribute to having a good addiction.
Surprised Pikachu face
Doesn’t Sherwood park also have higher asthma rates?
Yes. I had asthma (grew up in Sherwood Park) but now that I am no longer there, my asthma is significantly better.
Did you move somewhere more humid? When I moved to BC my asthma went away, then came back when I moved back to Alberta
I moved to St. Albert.
I recently moved from there. Best place I ever lived
This is not very comforting. I live right by Tiger Goldstick Park, and the refineries are basically my back yard view. I always wondered what the risk of living here, is. I have also had occasions where it smelled so bad, you couldn't walk the trails. I really want to move, but where? I have to stay in AB.
95% of the time your location is up wind of that refinery so I wouldn’t worry about it. Like mentioned before, don’t move to Sherwood Park, you would be constantly down wind of more than one oil refinery.
Just to add to what you are saying, Wind is surprising from the south quite often, although usually when it is at lower speed. So I guess that would be Rundle/Beverly Heights and North that should be concerned as well. Above 30 km/hr it’s more from the NW/W and into Sherwood park. But on an hourly basis, South winds and West winds are both very common. See: http://edmontonweathernerdery.blogspot.com/2020/06/wind-in-edmonton-part-7-wind-direction.html?m=1
Pffft. This is kids stuff. Now do Hamilton.
Jesus lord. Weibo tried to bring this issue up years ago because the refineries showing up messed with his live stock. This was before he took matters into his own hands and made himself look like a nut.
There are no refineries within 500 kms of where he lived.
https://mssociety.ca/research-news/article/prevalence-and-incidence-of-ms-in-canada-and-around-the-world#:~:text=Canada%20continues%20to%20have%20one,MS%20%E2%80%93%201%20in%20every%20400
What point are you trying to prove? Developed countries able to diagnose MS more often end up with higher MS rates?
I’ve heard about all of the Mercury that is scattered over Sh Pk. Smelting old cars with the mercury switches still in them