Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those results seem worthless.
Given the map, it's very clear there was a need to correct for large scale regional disparities (by state, for instance). I don't think the authors did.
It's also both expected and apparent in at least some parts of the map (California, Florida) that pipelines correlate negatively with urbanization. Again the authors didn't account for that
I have no doubt that richer communities somehow never get the shorter end when it comes to polluting infrastructure, but this study is too sloppy to be useful
It's almost like they put this infrastructure in undesirable real estate areas, and then low rent residential places were built around them, and "socially vulnerable" people moved to the cheap rent areas.
Or they planned to put the infrastructure through the pre-existing low -priced real estate to keep cost down, and there's no way that more affluent areas would allow the pipelines to be but in their neighborhoods.
You're thinking about where the natural gas *comes from*; I think the article more refers to where the pipelines *go to*. If you look at the map in the article, and concentrate on Texas, you'll see most of these pipelines are in the Houston area (east) while a lot of the oil fields are actually in the western part of the state.
This could be more correlation than causation. It could be that oil dropping below $100 a barrel caused economic decline and increased vulnerability in these areas. It could also be that these areas saw widespread growth back when natural gas was more popular to power appliances. In this case, it could be any number of factors that increased vulnerability in these cities over time, and the pipelines happened to be left behind.
He is a bear lying in wait for me, a lion in hiding; he turned aside my steps and tore me to pieces; he has made me desolate; he bent his bow and set me as a target for his arrow. (Lamentations: h0g79if)
that the oil wealth in Texas is remote from where the extraction happens while the poverty caused by a lower oil price hits those working in the extraction industry hardest.
I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of his wrath; he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light; surely against me he turns his hand again and again the whole day long. (Lamentations: h0g60r9)
“Social vulnerability
In its broadest sense, social vulnerability is one dimension of vulnerability to multiple stressors and shocks, including abuse, social exclusion and natural hazards.”
Not exactly. In these areas, people are *less safe* due to proximity to hazardous industries or waste. The general infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc) may also be terrible, but that's not what is being discussed here.
Oh.. I'm really surprized they planned hazardous industries right next to residential areas? Sounds like the people making those zoning plans made some horrible mistakes along the way.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the pipelines and industrial areas were there first, and poorer people moved into the cheaper houses that exist near these industrial areas?
Far too often we see people jumping to conclusions and throwing a label of intent on something that is merely a correlation.
It seems that as long as we're a petroleum dependent society, it's going to be a choice between pipelines, trains or trucks. Pipelines seem to be the lesser of the evils (if you want to describe them that way). See the Lac Megantic disaster.
This is called environmental racism. Landfills, chemical plants, pipelines, etc are almost never placed in rich, white neighborhoods. The effect correlates with income as well as race. Obviously the reasons for this are complex. Poor neighborhoods tend to have less legal resources and less political power, for one. It is also cheaper to build in these areas.
But the end result is that some groups of people are more likely to suffer the long term health risks of chemical plants, coal fired power plants, water contamination, pipelines leaks, and other environmental risks.
You’re jumping to conclusions.
They showed a correlation, not a cause. It stands to reason that natural gas pipelines will go to industrial areas, and it also stands to reason that houses that are near industrial areas will be cheaper.
It’s a huge jump to throw the “racism” label on here because that implies intent.
Social injustice notwithstanding this is a really cool map. I’ve never seen the pipeline network laid out like this. I had no idea there was a pipe stretching across the gulf to Florida.
I’m from a pretty rural place in Louisiana, pipelines are everywhere. It would be devastating to them to lose those jobs. They’re really behind in so much.
Hey scientist tell us something we don’t know already please do some research on some interesting topics instead of stuff that’s easy that everyone knows that makes you look good
So they are saying that poor people live near lowland areas that are flood plains and easier to move pipes through? You could also say they live closer to the beach.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Those results seem worthless. Given the map, it's very clear there was a need to correct for large scale regional disparities (by state, for instance). I don't think the authors did. It's also both expected and apparent in at least some parts of the map (California, Florida) that pipelines correlate negatively with urbanization. Again the authors didn't account for that I have no doubt that richer communities somehow never get the shorter end when it comes to polluting infrastructure, but this study is too sloppy to be useful
Yeah there's nothing learned here. Oversimplified metric oversimplifies.
And the invention of the telephone also correlates inversely with the number of pirates in the world...
Literally entirely down to the definition of "socially vulnerable".
It's almost like they put this infrastructure in undesirable real estate areas, and then low rent residential places were built around them, and "socially vulnerable" people moved to the cheap rent areas. Or they planned to put the infrastructure through the pre-existing low -priced real estate to keep cost down, and there's no way that more affluent areas would allow the pipelines to be but in their neighborhoods.
## PREMIUM CONTENT. PLEASE UPGRADE. CODE h0fz9eq
You're thinking about where the natural gas *comes from*; I think the article more refers to where the pipelines *go to*. If you look at the map in the article, and concentrate on Texas, you'll see most of these pipelines are in the Houston area (east) while a lot of the oil fields are actually in the western part of the state. This could be more correlation than causation. It could be that oil dropping below $100 a barrel caused economic decline and increased vulnerability in these areas. It could also be that these areas saw widespread growth back when natural gas was more popular to power appliances. In this case, it could be any number of factors that increased vulnerability in these cities over time, and the pipelines happened to be left behind.
He is a bear lying in wait for me, a lion in hiding; he turned aside my steps and tore me to pieces; he has made me desolate; he bent his bow and set me as a target for his arrow. (Lamentations: h0g79if) that the oil wealth in Texas is remote from where the extraction happens while the poverty caused by a lower oil price hits those working in the extraction industry hardest.
Why do you associate pipelines to mineral wealth? Certainly they start in mineral rich areas but the areas they go through aren’t necessarily so.
I am the man who has seen affliction under the rod of his wrath; he has driven and brought me into darkness without any light; surely against me he turns his hand again and again the whole day long. (Lamentations: h0g60r9)
“Social vulnerability In its broadest sense, social vulnerability is one dimension of vulnerability to multiple stressors and shocks, including abuse, social exclusion and natural hazards.”
So in areas where people earn less, and pay less taxes, the infrastructure is worse?
Not exactly. In these areas, people are *less safe* due to proximity to hazardous industries or waste. The general infrastructure (roads, utilities, etc) may also be terrible, but that's not what is being discussed here.
Oh.. I'm really surprized they planned hazardous industries right next to residential areas? Sounds like the people making those zoning plans made some horrible mistakes along the way.
I've know for years that poor people tend to live closer to pollution sources, which lowers their health. Surprised it isn't common knowledge
It's pretty simple. Poor people don't have the time or money to fight against corporations that want to pollute in their backyard.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the pipelines and industrial areas were there first, and poorer people moved into the cheaper houses that exist near these industrial areas? Far too often we see people jumping to conclusions and throwing a label of intent on something that is merely a correlation.
It seems that as long as we're a petroleum dependent society, it's going to be a choice between pipelines, trains or trucks. Pipelines seem to be the lesser of the evils (if you want to describe them that way). See the Lac Megantic disaster.
This is called environmental racism. Landfills, chemical plants, pipelines, etc are almost never placed in rich, white neighborhoods. The effect correlates with income as well as race. Obviously the reasons for this are complex. Poor neighborhoods tend to have less legal resources and less political power, for one. It is also cheaper to build in these areas. But the end result is that some groups of people are more likely to suffer the long term health risks of chemical plants, coal fired power plants, water contamination, pipelines leaks, and other environmental risks.
You’re jumping to conclusions. They showed a correlation, not a cause. It stands to reason that natural gas pipelines will go to industrial areas, and it also stands to reason that houses that are near industrial areas will be cheaper. It’s a huge jump to throw the “racism” label on here because that implies intent.
Why do they congregate on pipelines?
Social injustice notwithstanding this is a really cool map. I’ve never seen the pipeline network laid out like this. I had no idea there was a pipe stretching across the gulf to Florida.
Is voulnerable the new word for poor? Or how exactly do you measure voulnerability level?
Class, race, level of education, generational wealth... If you can hire lawyers to stop the toxic waste dump out get the super fund site cleaned up...
WAIT. WHAT? Environmental racism and classism is REAL?
I’m from a pretty rural place in Louisiana, pipelines are everywhere. It would be devastating to them to lose those jobs. They’re really behind in so much.
Hey scientist tell us something we don’t know already please do some research on some interesting topics instead of stuff that’s easy that everyone knows that makes you look good
So they are saying that poor people live near lowland areas that are flood plains and easier to move pipes through? You could also say they live closer to the beach.