Lies, Truth, and the Graphs in between

I really like the Flowing Data website/blog.  The blog is a wonderful presentation of the myriad and often intriguing ways of presenting data.  Sometimes data I really could care less about, but sometimes data that gives me a chance to look at what's meaningful in the method of presentation.

Lisa's course (PubH 6172, IH Applications) included a lecture on data presentation.  It was the first time I had a coherent, planned discussion about the whole matter.  One can look at something and say "that's not very clear" ... but why?  how do I improve it?  Have I lost the whole point I'm trying to make?  Could it be presented with a different style of graph to make it better?  Is it a 2"x2" picture in the paper which, in fact, only has 3 data points amidst the colorful image? (data density)

This is not only applicable to the NYTimes or Strib.  I'm trying to figure out how to present the data for my masters' paper.  The question is not only what to present ... the questions to ask are:
Do the graphs have enough data?
Do they have too much data?
Can I show the graphs to someone without the text of the thesis and explain my research?

The books Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics and How to Lie with Statistics are some of many books on the topic of being deceived by statistics (intentionally or not).  If you are actively trying to avoid being lied to - or - are trying to assure you don't inadvertently deceive someone ... learning all you can about the topic is critical.
.

2008 BLS stats

The Bureau of Labor and Statistics has released the official Injury and Illness statistics for the 2008 calendar year. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.nr0.htm Table 23 is usually one of particular interest to me: this breaks down the data by causation, rather than industry. Not that the social demographics aren't interesting - but I can't control the demographics of my work place. The cause (fall, exposure, etc.) are what industrial hygienists are out to control. Hopefully the fatality data will be later today.

Build it, and they will ... dump?

The MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) is excavating the landfill in Washington County to install a modern containment system. As the Strib dubbed it, an "history-making landfill do-over". 33 acres of garbage. $20,000,000. wow. ever notice that people write $20M or $20 million? It doesn't seem so impressive without all the zeros. That has led to one of the biggest attempts to go back and undo decades-old environmental practices that the metro area has ever seen. At the bottom of the 90-foot pit, four dozers were spreading clay that will form the base of the landfill. Compactors with huge spiked rollers were smoothing it. ... The landfill will have three layers of heavy plastic liner, separated by layers of geosynthetic material. Lewis said the new landfill will hold mainly old garbage but is designed with a higher level of protection often used to handle hazardous wastes. It will have three distinct layers to prevent any contaminated water in the landfill from reaching ground water: two feet of compacted clay at the bottom, three layers of heavy plastic above that, and two feet of sand and a collection and drainage system above the liners. an MPCA senior engineer, said no surprises have come to light so far in the nearly 300,000 cubic yards of waste removed. -- now, that in itself is a surprise The state has received some complaints about construction noise since work began in early June, he said, and one call about odor. The contractor is spraying the waste with a slurry of cement and cardboard paper to reduce odors, ... What kind of precedent is being set? Can I complain about the landfill in my part of town (hypothetically) and have the MPCA bring it up to modern standards? Does this remove any grandfather compliance clause about environmental protection? And really, what's the difference - ethically or scientifically - between cleaning up 3M (and other people's) waste and cleaning up the arsenic floating around the Philips Neighborhood over here? Oh, I know the difference. 3M has tons of money and can afford to spend $8,000,000 to help cleanup. The pesticide company which operated in Philips doesn't exist anymore. and, of course: NIMBY "I don't understand how this could have been a viable solution -- to dig this up, put in a liner, and then put it all back into the ground," said ---, who lives a half-mile east of the landfill. She and others at public meetings advised MPCA officials to truck the trash away to be burned or buried elsewhere. "I don't understand" = MPCA didn't do a good enough job communicating the risk management -- or the person quoted represents people who aren't willing to expend the energy to understand. "I don't understand" just isn't the same as "I don't agree with" or "I do understand and I still think this is a poor choice". I do sympathize with people who don't understand it, and don't have the scientific knowledge to know which questions to ask. If someone doesn't understand, and they're not an environmental toxicologist or hazardous waste controller ... how do we expect them to even be able to question our decisions? Ah, back to my criticism of modern American educational system. Although, I would likely have supported hauling it off to incinerate it. Still, this "make this someone else's problem" just aggravates me. I don't like the fact there's arsenic in the neighborhood near mine - but it's not like the MPCA or EPA is going to pull up the top soil for an entire neighborhood and bury it somewhere else. Until someone figures out how to make money at it. .

War on Science

Slate.com declared the War on Science to be over. Meanwhile the Columbia Journalism Review reported: CNN, the Cable News Network, announced yesterday that it will cut its entire science, technology, and environment news staff, including Miles O'Brien, its chief technology and environment correspondent, as well as six executive producers. Mediabistro’s TVNewser broke the story. “We want to integrate environmental, science and technology reporting into the general editorial structure rather than have a stand alone unit,” ... "integrate" generally doesn't mean "eliminate and leave the rest hanging". Let's just eliminate the advertising department, Joe, and let the Marketing and Sales fellows cover it as an integrated unit, but only after we fire all of the advertising guys. "integrate" should be 'reorganize and then cut jobs'. The War on Science will be over when I'm long dead and gone, if ever. The ever-increasing number of parents who reject modern medicine in toto ... ... who seek to embrace 'natural' or 'homeopathic' or 'alternative' medicine while blissfully living encapsulated from disease in a society built on what they reject ... ... who refuse to acknowledge the potential for "science" to be able to explain better than the Bible ... ... Those who refuse to acknolwedge the potential for "science" to support religion** ... ... all of this simply reinforces an undeclared and often unacknowledged War on Science. ** Of the number of people I know who are devout scientists, a significant proprotion of them are concurrently devout theists.

Risk Communication

The Godfather Guru of Risk Communication, Peter Sandman, has quite a few columns on his website, www.psandman.com, including this one, Simplification Made Simple, published in the Sept. 2008 issue of The Synergist. The website has the unabridged version.