The paper is linked in the article:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;1748-9326&#x2F;11&#x2F;1&#x2F;015004" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;iopscience.iop.org&#x2F;article&#x2F;10.1088&#x2F;1748-9326&#x2F;11&#x2F;1&#x2F;015...</a><p>They apparently analyzed population density near their outliers, but they don&#x27;t discuss it. My general sense is that polluting industry will be located in areas with very low population density (these areas tend to be poorer than high density areas). To be clear, that&#x27;s just speculation.<p>They also don&#x27;t discuss the actual expected impact of the toxic outliers. The data they used to determine the outliers is government data about environmental release of toxic chemicals; there is at least the possibility that the releases are within sensible regulatory limits and don&#x27;t pose a great deal of risk to the people nearby.<p>Note all the people commenting in this story that pollution of the Flint river is not a significant contributor to the problem in Flint, it&#x27;s the pipes and the failure to adjust the PH of the water (here&#x27;s the VTech professor that did a lot of the advocacy blaming the lack of corrosion control: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;flintwaterstudy.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;09&#x2F;commentary-mdeq-mistakes-deception-flint-water-crisis&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;flintwaterstudy.org&#x2F;2015&#x2F;09&#x2F;commentary-mdeq-mistakes-...</a> ).