Statistics in Your World

Allison Brown STATS 2000 Dr. Bird 8 May 2020 Statistics in Your World: Final Project (At the bottom of my project I have included the statistical content (in chronological order) that are referred to) Health Statistic: For my health statistic I simply searched Google Images for “endometriosis statistics” and immediately found one that caught my attention stating, “Up to 50% of women with endometriosis have difficulty becoming pregnant”. Upon closer examination of this statistical poster I found that it belonged to an Australian group called “March into Yellow”. Following the link from the image I found the organization’s mission statement, “Endometriosis Australia endeavours to increase recognition of endometriosis, provide endometriosis education programs, and help fund endometriosis research”. Following the website to the mentioned statistic I came across a blog post of sorts explaining to women with endometriosis the chances of being fertile with the disease and In-vitro fertilization options, all without mentioning a single statistic or number. At the bottom of the blog post two sources were referenced. With the first source, I was only able to access the abstract from a medical study conducted by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine in 2012, from the abstract it seemed that the study was just detailing the symptoms, treatment options, and briefly mentioned infertility. The second source led me to the same online medical database and to a report from the Australian CREI Consensus Expert Panel in 2012 where I was only able to preview the abstract as well. It stated that, “ … this article summarises the consensus developed by a group of Australasian subspecialists in reproductive endocrinology and infertility … on the evidence concerning the management of endometriosis in infertility” (Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel, 2012). I am unsure if I was unable to view these sources because I am outside of the country in which they were published or if they were unavailable to public viewers. Regardless, it is irritating that the only two references or links to statistics for the poster were unavailable. Examining this statistic through the CRAP Test. For currency, both of the medical studies referenced are from 2012 and the blog post has no date, therefore, I am left to assume that it is not really current information and medical knowledge about a medical disease that has been further researched in the past eight years. For reliability, I do trust the sources that were referenced, they are medical reports and are in a database that seems credible, however, I was unable to see them besides their abstracts and cannot entirely be certain that they are reliable, the statistic that I saw on the poster was never directly confirmed either in the blog post or in one of the two linked sources. For authority, the “March into Yellow” organization seems to have enough endorsements and credibility, but, because I was unable to follow the evidence and this statistic was listed above the blog post with no mention to it within, I am left to question the authority of this organization to make such a bold statistical statement. The purpose of this statistic is to make women with the disease aware that they are 50% likely to have difficulty with becoming pregnant, which itself is vague because what a “difficult” is never defined. Additionally, the article never mentions any struggles for women with endometriosis becoming pregnant besides IVF, and does not further elaborate on any other “difficulties”. Product Statistic: With the COVID-19 global pandemic that is currently occuring and a lack of outside statistics, upon looking through my house I can across Clorox cleaning wipes and recalled a previous discussion we had in class about the “99.9%” advertised on their products and similarly other cleaning products that are being used now more than ever. At first, I followed the mark next to the “99.9%” and found that it simply led me to a list of viruses and bacterias that the cleaning product is able to tackle, no actual information about how and where this number came from. A quick google search led me at first to a Wall Street Journal article from 2009 that revealed that there are no government regulations on what germs cleaners have to kill to report a 99.9%, so cleaning product companies often set up ideal conditions in a lab and then test the product. An example of this is detailed, “the countertops and human hands used for testing are scrubbed completely clean, then reapplied with a weak bacterium that is easy to eliminate” (Wall Street Journal, 2009). Following this article I was led to a Penn State Research Article that referenced a study conducted by the University of Ottawa where 3 different household cleaning products, including Clorox, were tested and found to fall between 46% and 60% effective (Penn State, 2016) in killing the mentioned viruses/bacteria that products claimed to. Examining this statistic through the CRAP test, it is clear that the statistic advertised on cleaning products and sanitizers is fundamentally flawed. With currency, the majority of articles and research done about this “99.9%” are rather dated and it seems that this statistic has just been accepted by the public, regardless of the fact that it’s not proven to be true. For reliability, as I established earlier it is clear that Clorox and other companies are falsifying lab results so they cannot be trusted. However, the research conducted through Penn State University and the University of Ottawa is reliable and has the authority. Clorox has the authority to place this statistic on their products because of a lack of regulation on their testing of products. The purpose of this statistic is clearly to sell the product, convincing consumers that the cleaning wipes or sanitizer is overwhelmingly effective. Social Problem Statistic: I came across this sponsored (which essentially means that the creator pays for the content to be seen to a certain demographic) content on Instagram earlier in the semester. The post from @chicksforclimate (in May 2019) states, “71% of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by 100 companies”. The description under the post offered no explanation from where the statistic was found. Upon a quick google search, I found, word-for-word, the exact same statistics come across countless news organizations such as: CNN, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Wall Street Journal, and other prominent sources. Mentioned in an article in the Guardian was a study conducted by the Carbon Disclosure Project, a non-profit based out of the United Kingdom aiming to “spread awareness about global gas emissions”. The research was conducted in 2017 and named 100 companies as the highest producers globally, citing prominent emissions coming from groups like Exxonmobil and Gazprom OAO. This led to the original report conducted and while looking for a direct source from where these numbers were compiled, I was unable to find one. At the bottom of the hundred or so page report it stated that the list was compiled from “government sources” that were gathered by a small team of analysts, the report does not directly list where the information was gathered from. Running this statistic through the CRAP test. The original research document was compiled and published in 2017, but the post wasn’t until 2019. I found this odd that the older research would be used when surely there had been other lists compiled since? With reliability, the non-profit does not explicitly say where or how the information for the list was compiled, which signals a lack of reliability. With authority, the author of the report is Dr.Paul Griffin with a phD in climate science, but the lack of naming sources and being a non-profit with aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the authority for this non-profit to compile this list is questionable. Regarding the purpose/point of view, for the instagram post, it can be determined from the name of the page (@chicksforclimate) and description that the point of the post is to try and convince readers not to support the companies mentioned. For the original non-profit report, the motivation is the same, to keep the list impactful to convince readers to not support the mentioned 100 companies. Education Related Statistic: I came across this statistic a month or so ago while following a link from a Washington Post article to the World Economic Forum’s website. The graph shows the number of students that have been out of school due to the COVID-19 pandemic starting on February 25 and presenting data until March 23, with 1.38 billion students out of school. The article with this graph and the statistic was published on March 26, so it is somewhat dated given how fast information and data about coronavirus is circulating. The site notes that Statistica collaborated with the group to create the graphs and images displaying the statistics. The source mentioned for the data is UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) who gathered their information through contact with their national branches who keep in contact with the state departments for various countries globally. This graph and statistics account for information from the 193 countries that are a part of the United Nations. Putting this statistic through the CRAP test, the statistic would most definitely be in any other realm of statistics, but, because COVID-19 epidemic is so fast moving it is out of date, given that many more schools have probably closed since data stopped being reported on March 23. For reliability, this graph is incredibly reliable, with the data being compiled by UNESCO from direct contact with the mentioned nations. For authority, the same stands, UNESCO has the authority with the United Nations to publish these sorts of reports and statistics. The purpose of this statistic is to educate its viewers about the number of students who are no longer in-person in their schools, to perhaps show the severity of coronavirus globally on education. Social Media Statistic: For this statistic, on Instagram I searched under the hashtag #statistics and a colored map of the United States displaying “Teen Pregnancy Rates by State” was one of the first results, posted in the past month. The map is various shades of green, each depicting the birth rates per 1,000 females ages 15-19 in states the source as the CDC in 2018 on the graph, however, in the description next to listing the source again as the CDC the infamous blog online site “Reddit” is mentioned. With a google search I was easily able to find the CDC report of “Stats of the State” regarding teen pregnancy. When examining a side by side comparison of the two (onmaps the next page) there definitely seems to be some alarming differences at first glance. Firstly, the scales for different colors that are used are different. The lightest green shade on the map from Instagram represents “7.2 - 10.2” whereas the lowest category of pregnancies from the CDC ranges from “7.2 - 18.1”. The original CDC graph has 5 different categories but the map pulled from Instagram has ten different categories. The creator of the instagram graph did not simply just split the CDC graph’s grouping in half but used the data on the CDC site listed underneath the graph to create their own categories. Upon further inspection, it seems that the graph on instagram is still accurate and represents the CDC data, but in just a different way. (Instagram map) (CDC map) Evaluating this statistic through the CRAP test, the currency of the data used to compile both of these graphs would seem outdated, but 2018 is the most recent data that the CDC has available from states to compile this data and these graphs. For reliability, the CDC clearly has reliability. With the instagram map, the data represented (although different) is still accurate with the CDC map, I was unable to determine where/why “Reddit” was also mentioned as a source which gives me some pause, but the statistic seems to be accurate compared to the CDC map. For authority, the CDC has the authority to produce and represent such data, the instagram page the map was posted on seems to do the same sort of thing (using CDC data to make their own maps representing social topics) but does not have clear authority or official endorsement to post these types of posts with confidence on Instagram. For purpose, in both cases these statistics are shared to educate about the rates of teen pregnancy both nationally and from state to state. Statistic of Choice: I decided to investigate another statistic on Instagram through searching through the #statistics hashtag, earlier I had noticed many posts in a foreign language. One of the first results was a post from the account @LearnEasyStatistics in Portoguese with the statistic that, “1 in 4 people suffer from some type of mental disorder”. The statistic did not mention if it was simply referring to Brazil, but the outline of the country was on the post so an assumption could be made and does not define what a mental disorder is in regards to the statistic. The post then has other comments saying along the sentiment to reach out to your family/friends because you do not know if they are “mentally suffering” and to think about yourself if they are all “ok”. The description below the post referenced a website which I followed to find the same “Learn Easy Statistics” sponsored content with seemingly strange articles. A highlight of the website that instantly caught my eye with regards to this course read as follows, “Did you know that the incorrect use of statistical tests is more common than we think and that this can lead researchers to draw incorrect conclusions? This is terrible, as incorrect conclusions can lead to disastrous decision making. So if you don't want yourself and your research to fall into this hole, read this article to the end” (Learn Easy Statistics). Upon searching the website for “mental disorder” in both English and Portoguese and other search terms no results populated. With further research on Google I was unable to find any website or source that stated any sort of number even of the public (yet alone a percentage) that suffers from a mental health issue. While conducting this research, I did find information regarding the intense stigmas that still impact Brazil today, “ the tragedy, stigmatisation, fear, and abandonment of people with mental health disorders …” ( ). This fear of being medically recognized to have a mental disorder may impact individuals from identifying as having a mental illness in fear, which would then lessen the overall count of disorders in the country. Putting this statistic through the CRAP test. It’s currency is hard to determine. The content was posted in July of 2019 and with no other supporting evidence it can be assumed that this statistic is outdated. For reliability, this statistic fails. The content creator is not reliable, their website is most certainly not, and I was unable to find any numbers (yet alone a clear 25%) online. For authority, this website and group is questionable and a blog site at best and seems to have no medical or legitimate authority to be posting statistics regarding mental illness in Brazil. Their other content ranges from relationships to Brazillian politics with no clear objective besides attempting to show their consumers that statistics can be misrepresented or incorrect in government/public sources. The purpose of this post on Instagram is to encourage readers to reach out to their friends about mental illness and even to consider their own mental wellbeing. Sources (in order of appearance): Endometriosis Australia: Home. 2020). Retrieved from https://www.endometriosisaustralia.org/ The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Endometriosis and infertility: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22704630 "Endometriosis and Infertility - a consensus statement from ACCEPT (Australasian CREI Consensus Expert Panel on Trial evidence)." Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016798 Bialik, Carl. “Kills 99.9% of Germs -- Under Some Lab Conditions.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, December 16, 2009. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126092257189692937 “Consumer Products: Science in Our World: Certainty and Controversy.” Science in Our World Certainty and Controversy. Penn State University, October 21, 2016. https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa16/2016/10/21/kills-99-9-of-germs-really/ “The Carbon Majors Database,” 2017. https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.c m/cms/reports/documents/00/002/327/original/Carbon-Majors-Report-2017.pdf Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, July 10, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companie -i nvestors-responsible-7global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change McCarthy, N., & Statista. (2020). COVID-19's staggering impact on global education. Retrieved https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/infographic-covid19-coronavirus-impact-glo al-education-health-schools/ Stats of the State - Teen Birth Rates. (2018, April 28). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/teen-births/teenbirths.htm Fácil, A. E. (2020). PASSO A PASSO PARA ANÁLISES PRÁTICAS E RÁPIDAS. Retrieved from http://estatisticafacil.org/ Diniz, Debora, and Maria Tavares Cavalcanti. “Mental Illness and Crime in Brazil.” The Lancet, Dec. 2013, www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)62623-9/fulltext. Rough Translation from Portoguese: “Statistics on mental health … 1 in 4 people suffer from some type of mental disorder … So, do this simple exercise: … Think of your 3 best friends if they are OK, so what about you … mark them here in the comments … Learn easy statistics”