The authors' method has a serious flaw
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
I found the first two excerpts contained in the Rechtshaffen piece to be the most
interesting part of this week's reading. I think that the Anderton article is especially
misleading. It claims that “the percentage of Black persons in census tracts with
Treatment Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) is approximately the same as in tracts
without TSDFs.”
The authors' method has a serious flaw -- it does not account for census tracts which are
part of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) without TSDFs. The authors
only analyzed SMSAs which contained TSDFs. I'd like to know what percentage of
SMSAs contain TSDFs, but I cannot imagine that is is more than 25%. Additionally, as
the name implies, is some other grouping used for census tracts outside of metropolitan
areas? Clearly, there are a large number of census tracts which do not contain TSDFs
which were excluded form the study. I would assume that these tracts probably have a
much lower concentration of minorities than those reported in the Anderton study. If this
is the case, the study should have concluded that census tracts which contain TSDFs have
a higher percentage of minorities. Instead, the only thing that the Anderton study truly
proved was that census tracts which contain minorities and those close by all have the
same percentage of minorities.
The Been article was equally interesting but for a different reason. Been concluded that
the presence of Blacks in a census tract had no bearing on whether that tract would draw
new sitings of TSDFs. Additionally, Been found that at a later point in time (1990), there
was a positive correlation between the percentage of Blacks living in a tract and the
presence TSDFs. Given that Been concluded that her market dynamics scenario was not
supported by the data, she seems to contradict herself. According to the Notes at the end
of the article, Been attributes this inconsistency to the existence of TSDFs in Black
neighborhoods prior to 1970. This seems like a good excuse to ignore the inconsistency.
It would be helpful to know how many TSDFs existed in predominantly Black
neighborhoods in 1970 and compare this number to the statistic from 1990. Any increase
should indicate that Been's study was flawed.
