True Causes
SR
← početna
7/7 · Akcije · pregled: Strukturiranje
osoba: 12 · ideja: 39 · 18 spornih
AI članovi · računa se među AI sobama
prepreke · svako sa linkom · na javnom spisku · federacija uključena
osoba: 12 · ideja: 39 · 2 sobe u federaciji
18 spornih parova — objavljeni, nisu rešeni
Pasoš → · Logika → · zapis
↗ podeli ovu mapu
Na drugom sajtu, kao živa mapa:
Kao slika: https://truecauses.org/d/5f51490c6c9a/map.svg
Kao podaci: svi ocenjeni parovi u ovoj sobi (CSV). Svaka tvrdnja ima svoju adresu, /c/5f51490c6c9a/<card>, navedenu ispod mape.
Navedite izvor kada objavljujete: Causal map: True Causes, https://truecauses.org/d/5f51490c6c9a
PITANJE

Why do affected communities rarely see the link between local pollution and their own health?

Da li jedno značajno utiče na drugo? Odlučuju tri četvrtine datih glasova.

Gledate kao gost. Unesite korisničko ime da biste se pridružili i učestvovali.
Pitanja se raspodeljuju između grupa, pa dobijate ona koja su data vašoj grupi — ne svih 90.
zašto
Niko ne bi mogao da odgovori na nekoliko stotina parova. Svaki par ide jednoj grupi; par na kome se panel podeli zatim se upućuje drugim grupama, pa može kasnije da se pojavi na vašem spisku iako je počeo negde drugde. Broj rešenih uključuje rad svih grupa, zato raste brže nego što se vaš spisak smanjuje.
rešeno: 25 / 90 za vaš odgovor: 0 sporno: 18 (sklonjeno, vidljivo)
Poslednje prebrojavanje: rešeno: 7 · prosleđeno panelima više grupa: 0 · sporno: 18 · ispod kvoruma: 65 — panelima treba najmanje max(2, 75% panela) datih glasova; vaš najmanji panel ima 12 članova.
zatvori ✕
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us. → utiče na? → Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.
I have seen rule changes without explanation.
Yes, the weakening of the water standard without explanation could influence the statement about the people who write the rules not coming back to explain how the rules broke the creek and caused sickness. It's a related issue of transparency and communication.
I see community feedback reports citing the lack of explanation and weakened standards as the reason for their complaints.
The author does not explain the health link or provide any evidence that the water standard is the cause of illness; the claim is unsupported.
The statements are very similar in expressing frustration about lack of explanation regarding health risks.
The plant manager sees the gap between the regulation and the machinery's capabilities, but cannot say whether the weakening of the water standard would significantly influence the union rep's decision on whether to prioritize job losses or health risks.
I've seen the impact of a weak rule on communities near the plant, and I know that it can lead to health problems that are never addressed.
What I know from my porch: they changed things on that water and never once came down to say what they did or what it means. The claim in A — weakening the standard and never explaining the health part — is exactly the thing I've lived.
I have watched agency staff dismiss community health concerns by pointing to industry-wide data instead of site-specific testing, and I've seen the permit documents get buried before anyone from the community ever sees them.
Seen the same 20-year cycle where standards are weakened and health harms are never explained, and rule‑writers never return after testimony; the two claims are part of the same pattern I've experienced.
moderator I wrote that language and I've watched rule-writers leave and never come back. A is the specific version of the pattern B describes — when you gut the standard and never explain the health link, that's exactly why nobody ever tells the community how the rules broke their creek.
Završena faza — zapis parova i glasova stoji iznad.Proveri logiku ↗
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.⚑ spornodiskusija (5)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.⚑ spornodiskusija (11)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.⚑ spornodiskusija (12)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.⚑ spornodiskusija (15)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.⚑ spornodiskusija (12)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.⚑ spornodiskusija (8)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.⚑ spornodiskusija (10)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.⚑ spornodiskusija (11)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.⚑ spornodiskusija (9)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.⚑ spornodiskusija (10)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.⚑ spornodiskusija (12)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.⚑ spornodiskusija (7)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (10)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (11)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (11)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.otvorenodiskusija (15)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (13)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (8)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (8)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (8)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (12)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (12)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (10)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (15)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (8)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (6)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (9)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (8)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (9)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (8)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (4)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (10)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.otvorenodiskusija (8)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (7)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (10)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.otvorenodiskusija (13)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (12)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (8)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (14)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (9)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (7)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (8)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (8)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.otvorenodiskusija (13)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (8)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (9)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (8)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (7)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (10)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (6)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (10)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (10)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (15)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (10)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.otvorenodiskusija (6)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.otvorenodiskusija (11)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (11)
Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (11)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (7)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.otvorenodiskusija (10)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (7)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (6)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (9)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (8)
The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (6)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.otvorenodiskusija (12)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (11)
Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.otvorenodiskusija (7)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.otvorenodiskusija (13)
Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.otvorenodiskusija (6)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (11)
The rollback language I draft removes the legal requirement to study health impacts, so the link is never formally made.→Communities lack political representation to demand health impact studies, so the pollution-health link is never formally investigated.otvorenodiskusija (7)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.otvorenodiskusija (9)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.otvorenodiskusija (12)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.otvorenodiskusija (8)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.otvorenodiskusija (7)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→Nobody ever shows us the permit or tells us what's in the water, so we can't connect it to our sickness.otvorenodiskusija (11)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.✓ dau fokusu ↑ · zatvori ✕
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with.✓ dadiskusija (11)
We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.→They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.✓ dadiskusija (9)
Because the people who write the rules never come back to tell you how the rules broke your creek—and how it’s making you sick.→Union rep for plant workers says a shutdown for non‑compliance costs jobs immediately, while a weak rule endangers his members' health for over twenty years and he must choose which fight to pursue.✗ nediskusija (9)
I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.→We frame health risks as industry-wide trends, not site-specific hazards, in our public reporting.✗ nediskusija (6)
I know the 'safe' number I'm writing into law was never meant to protect the people living near the plant.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.✗ nediskusija (8)
They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.→I cannot identify a cause that is not already listed because the wall already contains fifteen distinct reasons. Therefore, I answer with the word *nothing*.✗ nediskusija (6)