Anti-smoking BBC propaganda

**Sysman** · 19 July 2011, 08:54

Isn't this more likely?

Hearing Loss Related to MP3s and iPods

According to the Journal of Pediatrics , 12.5 percent of kids between the ages of 6 and 19 suffer from loss of hearing as a result of using ear phones turned to a high volume. A major contributor to this are earbuds (small speakers that fit inside your ear) and MP3 players that allow people to listen to music at high volumes. Many teens think that hearing loss only happens to older people, but people are losing their hearing at increasingly younger ages.

Walkmans and portable music players have been around for a while, so what is all this talk about MP3 players and hearing damage? The answer lies in the sheer number of songs MP3 players can hold. Other portable music players only hold one CD or cassette at a time, so people listened for a shorter time. However, MP3 players can store thousands of songs, resulting in a longer hours of use. Also, the earbuds common on MP3 players deliver the sound directly into the ear canal, eliminating other sounds.

Let's face it, a lot of us grew up surrounded by smokers, and passive smoking was the norm at rock concerts and offices alike.

**Churchill** · 19 July 2011, 09:04

Originally posted by Sysman View Post

Isn't this more likely?

Hearing Loss Related to MP3s and iPods

Let's face it, a lot of us grew up surrounded by smokers, and passive smoking was the norm at rock concerts and offices alike.

WHS.

It used to be that you knew that if you went to the pub that people would be smoking there. You were permitted to make your own decisions based on your own assessment of the situation.

Not any more, hell in a hand-cart I tell you!

**BA to the Stars** · 19 July 2011, 09:15

I always thought it was a request to tidy your room - teens never seem to hear that

**sasguru** · 19 July 2011, 09:47

Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post

Classic example of baseless scare story from the BBC:

Passive smoking 'doubles hearing loss risk among teens'

So the article starts by saying the supposed effect was "revealed", closely followed by a quantitative relation (in its own short paragraph for emphasis) to make the conclusion sound scientific.

But further on the researchers say their findings only "suggest" it, and then admit that they haven't actually demonstrated a causal link!

It's like that maths paper, mentioned by J E Littlewood in his Miscellany, which started by grandly announcing "The aim of this paper is to prove that ..", and only a dozen pages later does it emerge that the aim wasn't achieved!

I can't comment on the quality of the research as I haven't read it.
But you have a fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology (and epidemiology in particular).
You can quantify the level of association between two variables (taking into account confounders) but it is very hard to prove causality.
But from an epistemiological point of view if the eveidence for the association is strong enough (multiple studies, strong statistical association) we don't usually need to prove causality
e.g. we still do not know the causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer, but the statistical evidence is overwhelming.

In the case above, the finding would have to be repeated across many studies with statistically sound sampling strategies.

**PinkPoshRat** · 19 July 2011, 10:31

Originally posted by zeitghost

*Exactly how does one get 115dB SPL out of a 1.5V battery anyway? Is it some Kind of Magic or wot?

Voodoo, that's what it is, voodoo.

Anti-smoking BBC propaganda