Public Watchdog.org

More Problems Of Misinformation

08.17.09

Last Friday we wrote about how misinformation creates more disagreements than legitimate differences of opinion.  Today we deal with two more examples of that problem.

Last week’s (August 12) edition of the Park Ridge Journal contained two O’Hare Airport pieces with their own fair share of misinformation.  The first was a story about resident Gene Spanos’ “survey” of approximately 100 residents who had previously expressed opposition to O’Hare expansion (“Spanos Hopes Mayor Will Use O’Hare Survey Results”) – not exactly a “random” sampling.  The second was a letter to the editor from resident Tim Perry (“Residents Must Voice Opinions”).

Spanos wants Park Ridge Mayor Dave Schmidt to use those survey results when he meets with U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam (6th Dist.), presumably in support of reductions in flights, stopping construction of the runway whose path will extend over Granville, noise abatement, and other concessions Spanos wants in connection with the new runway 9L/27R.

While we don’t doubt that Spanos is well meaning, a 100-response survey – from people who have already expressed opposition to O’Hare expansion – isn’t even remotely close to being “statistically significant” (i.e., its results actually have meaning instead of being products of mere chance).  For a survey of Park Ridge residents to have statistical significance, Spanos would have needed approximately 800 responses from a random (rather than a pre-selected) pool.  

So Spanos’ survey results are statistically worthless for use by anybody for any legitimate purpose. In other words, they are just misinformation that actually detracts from legitimate O’Hare arguments and interferes with sound decision-making.

Perry’s letter in the Journal, which also ran as a guest essay in last week’s Herald-Advocate (“Resident begins his final reproach”), blames O’Hare expansion not just for more noise and pollution – as does Spanos’ letter – but also for the increased flooding Park Ridge has been experiencing: “There is information that links the O’Hare expansion to the flooding we now have on a regular basis.”

We trust Perry is also well-meaning, but when we looked for that “information” about the new runway causing our flooding we couldn’t find it anywhere.  And given the half-cocked way that too many residents seem to be going off about the new runway, flooding, and anything else that annoys them, we suspect that Perry’s “information” may have been somebody else’s fabrication. 

We also looked for proof of Perry’s contention that “when O’Hare built the new runway they had to reroute a stream and eliminate 150 acres of wetlands…[that] are no longer there to accept the water” that, presumably, flows into Park Ridge.  We couldn’t find anything about stream relocation, either, but we did find several references to the wetlands elimination – along with reports that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required the creation of 1.5 acres or more of new wetlands for every acre of wetlands that was destroyed during construction of the new runway. 

So unless Richie Daley and his minions were able to pull a “Chicago Way” con on the Army Corps of Engineers and get them to overlook the replacement of those eliminated wetlands, there appears to be no factual support for Perry’s contentions that the flooding in Park Ridge is attributable to the new runway.   

Noise and pollution from O’Hare air traffic is a serious issue for our community, as is flooding.  To deal effectively and successfully with those problems, we will need to enlist the cooperation of other governments and governmental officials – the federal government, the State of Illinois, and our neighboring municipalities.  To do that, we will need to project reason and credibility in the positions we take with them.

Misinformation, in the form of unfounded accusations and meaningless surveys, is exactly what we don’t need.

10 comments so far

For the defense…

Is “statistical significance” the only thing that counts when considering a public policy direction? Is there nothing “significant” about the “suffering” and/or opinions offered by any given “minority” group?

It seems to me to be acceptable to put forward the results of a survey based only on the answers given by an “identifiable” pool…those already opposed to O’Hare expansion. Their voices are no less important because of the way in which they might have been identified; and that readily transparent “identification” shows the integrity of the surveyor as well as those surveyed.

Additionally, those surveyed might be a generally identifiable group, but NO group is monolithic in its’ response(s) to issues…as the survey results show.

So, it seems to me perfectly legit to put forward these survey responses, discuss, debate, etc. Then it becomes the responsibility of our elected officials to determine a course of action best suited FOR EVERYONE, which is when something more “statistically significant” would certainly be in order.

I appreciate the effort Mr. Spanos put into this and I agree with yout general comments Jeannie. Again, I am left with the idea that this is something the city and Alderman should be doing. Is it not their responsibility to determine who has issues and what they are? Better yet, how about determining how proposed changes might cause issues for residents before they break ground – oooops too late!!!

I do agree with PD questioning the information, especially the new runway causing flooding. Just because I think the new runway sucks doesn’t remove my resbonsibility to make sure the information is accurate. People seem to have a tendency to take information as fact so long as it supports their desired results. Can you say health care???

anon on 08.17.09 7:27 am,

Thank you for your comment. My remarks were intended to be confined to consideration of the survey only.

I too agree with the questioning of the flooding and new runway, and the letter writer’s statement of a correlation between the two.

When I read the letter in the paper, I too thought it sounded a bit goofy and, without a cite given for the statement, it came off very weakly. However, I also know one can never be too sure about if, what and why a paper’s editor might choose to leave out something in a letter. An old editor at the H-A, Lloyd Weston, used to edit things out of my letters all the time for reasons that had to do with things other than the usual excuse of “space limitations”…reasons of personal opinion and disagreement he admitted to me. That man drove me nuts; glad he’s long gone.

policy formulation does not require a survey, or a wet finger to the wind. but i agree with the premise of today’s post, that a “survey” of park ridgers who were chosen (it sounds) for the survey because they already had complained about o’hare noise, etc., is not sufficiently credible for our mayor or any other city official to use when discussing the o’hare issue with third parties like congressman roskam.

survey’s done right are supposed to be (although they often aren’t, because of slanted question phrasing and other quirks) somewhat scientific. but from the way it sounds like this survey was taken, it is really “junk science” that is not even marginally credible.

I once managed a construction project (an industrial building) that encroached on wetlands. Although we were required to buy and protect wetlands to replace those that were destroyed, there was no regulation that said the new wetlands had to be near the construction site. If I remember correctly, the protected wetlands could be anywhere in Illinois. So, just because O’Hare replaced wetlands does not mean that the project is not causing additional flooding in our area.

In this case, the new wetlands are in Bartlett. See:

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-141353259/ohare-wetland-loss-dupage.html

The additional runoff from the new runway has to go somewhere and it is probably not flowing all the way to the new wetlands in Bartlett. Due to the location of the Des Plaines River, the runoff cannot flow directly into Park Ridge. I would suggest that this is a complex engineering issue and requires an in-depth analysis before people start publishing their opinions. Perhaps the commission that is looking into the flooding in Park Ridge can address this issue to determine if the new runway has caused additional flooding in Park Ridge.

Anonymous on 08.17.09 11:38 am:

Your point is well-taken re wetlands replacement remote from the ones removed.

However, the article you reference doesn’t appear to tell the whole story, because only 90 acres of wetlands are being created in Bartlett while the Corps of Engineers replacement standard is min. 1.5 acres replaced for every acre destroyed.

So if 154 acres of wetlands were lost at O’Hare, a minimum of 231 acres need to be replaced; which leaves 137 additional acres of replacement wetlands to be created somewhere.

Publicwatchdog:

Thanks for the update.

Here’s another reference that details the locations of replacement wetlands:

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=103451&keybold=forest%20restoration

Here’s a summary:

181 acres in Will County
30 acres in Homer Glen
15 acres at Lake Calumet
90 acres in Bartlett

According to the article, Chicago has to provide 450 acres of wetlands in the Des Plaines River valley. The projects above total only 316 acres, so there may be something closer to the O’Hare construction site but I can’t find any reference to them.

My belief, although I am not an expert in this field, is that none of these wetlands will take the runoff from any new runways at O’Hare airport due to their remote location. I also believe that the runoff is not crossing the Des Plaines River to cause flooding in Park Ridge. But, the additional water has to make its way to the river or the sewer system, or be held in retention somewhere. The way that this water is handled/stored may effect Park Ridge even if a causal relationship is not readily apparent.

I would expect that an in-depth engineering analysis of the effect of new runways on rainwater runoff was done during the engineering stage of the O’Hare expansion project. If so, the PR flooding task force should ask for the results of that study and bring the facts to the residents.

I recall reading somewhere that O’Hare is tapped in, big-time, to the Deep Tunnel. So that might be where the extra run-off goes. And if it helps fill up the deep tunnel, then there’s less room for our water to drain into it, I guess.

That should be a pretty simple question to pose to O’Hare or the Army Corps of Engineers.

I still believe the flooding is caused by the over-building of Uptown, the highest point in Park Ridge.

I think it is all caused by health care reform.



Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(optional and not displayed)