Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...in Louisville. If you are trying to avoid asthma problems because of pollen and pollution, I could think of some other places that I would move if I were you. Its not the worse place in the US but it sure isn't the best for fellow breathers. I hate to tell anyone this, because Louisville is such a cool town, but I just wouldn't do it. By the way, nice posts by the scientists of the group. I am not a scientist, but I am a skeptic. I hate the way supposedly "scientific" statistics are taken as fact just because someone throws them out as such, implying a dubious correlation. My psychology 101 prof laid out a fun example of this common and divisive issue.
A study of child birth rates in Japan revealed that there is a negative correlation between (x) number of children per household and (y) money spent on common household appliances. Aka: the fewer children a household in japan has, the more appliances they owned. Now, obviously, this is due to the fact that children are expensive and the fewer children you have, the more fancy wine openers you can afford to purchase. This is a relatively simple concept to understand, as many people have children and realize the financial implications of having a child. But, when you get into problems as complex as something like air quality, one can only imagine the unlimited different ways you could spin the empirical data to advance your agenda. Moral of the Story: Just because you see a correlation, it does not mean it is a direct correlation.