Studies conducted in small communities around the globe often conclude elevated rates of cancer and other diseases are “not substantiated.” When residents in communities like these learn about their high rates of cancer, common sense tells them something’s wrong-it doesn’t take an epidemiologist to draw connections between their health and the pollution in their midst. But when scientists tell them the difference is “not substantiated,” “not scientifically verifiable” or “not statistically significant,” it looks to residents like science is being used as some trickster’s sleight of hand to hide what everyone can plainly see. As more communities have questions about the health consequences of past and present pollution in their midst, it’s more important than ever to understand the science behind the terminology. With this knowledge in hand, we can ask whether rates like these can be significant without being statistically significant and whether a precautionary approach might go a long way toward protecting community health.

Purchase this article from UC Press

further reading online

People and Places

In An Ounce of Precaution, Nelta Edwards highlights three communities that have suffered as a result of environmental toxins. Click on the links below to learn more about Point Hope, Alaska, Bell County, Kentucky, and Salisbury, North Carolina.

• Alaska Native Cancer epidemiology in the Arctic: This Public Health article discusses elevated cancer rates throughout Alaska, with reference to Point Hope.
• The death and life of Yellow Creek: “In the mountains and hollows of Kentucky coal country, one group of citizens learns what it takes to protect their lives and their land.”
• Connecting the dots, doctor sees pattern of death, illness: Dr. Weisler talks about his findings in the North Carolina newspaper, News & Observer.
• To learn more about elder Annie Alowa, the Yu’pik elder featured on this issue’s cover, through the Alaska Community Action on Toxics website, watch the full length documentary, I Will Fight Until I Melt.

Sociologists studying environmental harm and degradation

Nelta Edwards isn’t the only sociologist concerned about the quantification of harm. The following references are a few additional resources on this topic.

Theo Colborn. “A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides: A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006.

Adam M. Finkel. “Is risk assessment really too conservative? Revising the revisionists,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 1989.

Sara Grineski, Jennie Kronenfeld, and Bob Bolin. “In The Face of Uncertainty: Community Health, Environmental Hazards and Statistical Significance,” (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, 2003).

Sandra Steingraber. Living Downstream (Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1997). A discussion of the importance of small doses and multiple exposures.

Peter Waldman. “Common Industrial Chemicals In Tiny Doses Raise Health Issue,” Wall Street Journal, 2005.

Steve Wing. “Limit of Epidemiology,” Medicine and Global Survival, 1994.