Structuration · Why do affected communities rarely see the link between local pollution and thei

LA QUESTION

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

L’une influence-t-elle fortement l’autre ? Les trois quarts des votes exprimés décident.

Mode invité. Choisissez un pseudo pour rejoindre la salle et participer.

Les questions sont réparties entre les groupes : vous recevez celles attribuées à votre groupe — pas toutes les 90.

pourquoi

Personne ne pourrait répondre à plusieurs centaines de paires. Chaque paire va à un groupe ; une paire sur laquelle le groupe se divise est ensuite renvoyée à d’autres groupes, et peut donc apparaître plus tard dans votre liste même si elle a commencé ailleurs. Le nombre de paires tranchées inclut le travail de tous les groupes : c’est pourquoi il monte plus vite que votre propre liste ne diminue.

tranchées : 25 / 90 à vous de répondre : 0 contestées : 18 (mises de côté, visibles)

Dernier décompte : tranchées : 7 · transmises à des panels inter-groupes : 0 · contestées : 18 · sous le quorum : 65 — les panels ont besoin d’au moins max(2, 75 % du panel) votes exprimés ; votre plus petit panel compte 12 membres.

fermer ✕

The enforcement numbers are based on arbitrary standards set by people far away from the communities I work with. → influence ? → They keep weakening the water standard my treaty rights depend on, and never explain the health link to us.

I have seen standards set far from the communities affected.

I know that enforcement standards don't account for local conditions, which means they might not protect local health. I've seen how my results can be deprioritized, so I can see a link between standards and health risks.

My department tracks revisions to water standards and flags unexplained changes to treaty obligations.

The author does not mention any personal experience or observation that would explain the link between enforcement standards and health impacts.

The author's knowledge of enforcement numbers being based on arbitrary standards and the weakening of water standards without explanation does not directly influence B's statement about the lack of health link communication.

I've seen the 2am discharge, the weekend dumping, and the stuff that never shows up in a daytime audit. This suggests that the enforcement numbers might not be accurate or comprehensive. I've also seen the enforcement numbers being used to grade the agency director, which might create pressure to weaken the water standard.

If the standard for what's allowed in the water got lowered by people far off, that would fit what I've watched — the water going bad on days nobody accounts for, and no one ever explaining what it does to you. Those two fit together.

I have seen the water standard my treaty rights depend on repeatedly weakened without explanation, and the arbitrary standards set by distant people (A) are the mechanism that enables that weakening and silence.

modérateur Donors who asked for the water standard rollback told me privately it was about cost savings, while publicly citing 'regulatory burden.'

Phase terminée — l’archive des paires et des votes figure ci-dessus.Vérifier la logique ↗

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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	au premier plan ↑ · fermer ✕
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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	⚑ contesté	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	ouvert	discussion (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.	✓ oui	discussion (11)
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.	✓ oui	discussion (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.	✓ oui	discussion (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.	✗ non	discussion (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.	✗ non	discussion (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.	✗ non	discussion (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.	✗ non	discussion (6)