Asthma Risk Linked To Early TV Viewing

Ponca City, We love you writes "The number of children with asthma has been rising for many years. About 1 in 10 children in the UK develop asthma, compared with about 1 in 25 in the 1960s. The reason for this isn't clear, although several theories have been put forward such as keeping our homes cleaner, and having central heating and more soft furnishings where house dust mites can multiply. Now based on more than 3,000 children whose respiratory health was tracked from birth to 11.5 years of age, researchers have found a new correlation with young children who spend more than two hours glued to the TV every day doubling their subsequent risk of developing asthma. 'This study has shown for the first time a positive association between increased duration of reported TV viewing in early childhood and the development of asthma by 11.5 years of age in children with no symptoms of asthma in early childhood,' said the researchers, led by A. Sherriff, from the University of Glasgow. It's not clear exactly how sedentary behaviors like television watching are tied to asthma, but there is some evidence to suggest exercise and deep breaths that come with it stretch the smooth muscles in the airways, while lack of exercise may make the lungs overly sensitive. The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to TV viewing."

Comments

Promiscuity

[BlackusDiamondus]

Wow, so promiscuity is now considered an undesirable outcome? Perhaps from a religious morals point of view...

Re:Promiscuity

[timmarhy]

promiscuity would be an advantagous trait, not a defect. this "research" seems highly suspect.

Re:Promiscuity

[drDugan]

beat me to the point...

"promiscuity" being "undesirable" seems in line with the absurd overly-judgmental attitudes toward sex promoted by the far right and the religious zealots

IMO people would be a *lot* better off being taught healthy norms about sex and encouraged to have more healthy sex - instead of the story that it is somehow bad and needs to be restricted, hidden and controlled by shaming people

Re:Promiscuity

[rrohbeck]

Just my thought.
I should have watched more TV as a child. Damn.

Re:Promiscuity

[Firehed]

For an 11-year-old? Um... ok, if you say so.

Re:Promiscuity

[fractoid]

Wow, so promiscuity is now considered an undesirable outcome? Perhaps from a religious morals point of view...

I'm guessing that it's the outcome you're likely to be able to achieve if you manage to dodge obesity, diabetes, smoking, and too much TV viewing.

Re:Promiscuity

[timmarhy]

RTFA.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

this just in, life linked to death...

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, to a 15 years old mothers they do....right ?

Re:Promiscuity

[DNS-and-BIND]

Actually, promiscuity is simple hedonism - it's empty and leads to a lonely place. The loss of shame leads to many, many social ills. The "if it feels good, do it" philosophy is bunk. The hippies had in mind something that they wanted, and were calling it "freedom," but in the final analysis "freedom" is a purely negative goal. It just says something is bad. Hippies weren't really offering any alternatives other than colorful short-term ones, and some of these were looking more and more like pure degeneracy. Degeneracy can be fun but it's hard to keep up as a serious lifetime occupation.

Re:Promiscuity

[Shadow of Eternity]

War is peace, etc... we know.

Re:Promiscuity

[Kokuyo]

Hedonism... I think the word does not mean what you think it means.

Promiscuity, as far as I understand it, just means that you change partners. It does not say how often and it does not say in what situations. It therefore also does not say anything about the value of these relationships.
Hedonism is supposed to be a world-view that puts the consumption at the top of one's priorities. It is supposed to be selfish.

That you equate the two shows that you either do not understand their meanings or have, in my opinion, a very unhealthy view on sex.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't fill every commercial break with a cigarette.

Re:Promiscuity

[commodore64_love]

>>>promiscuity is simple hedonism - it's empty and leads to a lonely place.

Yeah. So? I like leading an empty and lonely life. In fact, it's why I chose engineering. Who are YOU to judge my lifestyle? Jeez. "Lord, save me from your servants trying to control my life and my choices. Thanks."

/end sarcasm

Re:Promiscuity

[commodore64_love]

In the course of my life I've changed "partners" several times. I had a partner in elementary school who I called my "best friend", I had another in middle/high school, another in college, another in grad school, and yet another in my workplace.

I suppose that makes me promiscuous, but I don't care. Each one of my best friends/partners gave me fulfillment at each stage of my life. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Re:Promiscuity

[soren202]

[citation needed]

Re:Promiscuity

[cmdr_tofu]

TFA doesn't suggest that promiscuity is undesirable. Simple:
"The U.K. researchers used television viewing as a marker for sedentary behavior, since home computers and video-game systems weren't as widely used when the study began in the early 1990s. The results add asthma to a catalog of factors, including obesity, diabetes, smoking and promiscuity, tied to TV viewing."
Whether or not promiscuity is undesirable is highly subjective. In fact whether or not asthma is undesirable is also subjective. I know that via the magic of bicycling my asthma has virtually disappeared and I am happier for it, but I do less indoor activities as a result. If true, it certainly is interesting that TV-watching causes promiscuity!

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

Given how few teenagers are responsible enough to use protection, thus opening themselves to the risk of STDs and pregnancy, yeah, it's undesirable.

Re:Promiscuity

[teyrana]

promiscuity != succesful breeding

Those offspring need to not only live to breeding age, but also need to have their own kids to pass on genes.

Re:Promiscuity

[Ephemeriis]

Actually, promiscuity is simple hedonism

Promiscuity != Hedonism

Promiscuity is a "large" number of sexual partners. Large being purely subjective in this case. Just because someone is labeled as promiscuous does not mean that they're sleeping with a different person every night, nor does it mean that there's no value attached to the sex that they have. People in long-term, loving multiple-partner relationships are often labeled as promiscuous.

Hedonism is seeking pleasure above all else, that feeling good is your highest calling. This doesn't necessarily mean sex - it can also mean drugs, alcohol, food, whatever. And, yes, pursuing your own happiness/pleasure at the expense of all else does lead to many ills - social and otherwise.

The loss of shame leads to many, many social ills.

Personally, I've found that shame is rarely useful.

Shame comes in two flavors - your own, and everyone else's.

Your own shame is typically a result of realizing you did something you probably shouldn't have. I find it is typically better to think things through the first time and avoid the shame alltogether. When I'm trying to make a decision "I might be ashamed" doesn't enter into it - "is it a good decision" does. And typically, if it's a good decision, there's no call for shame.

Everyone else's shame is an attempt to get you to conform to what they think you should be doing. "You ought to be ashamed!" is someone telling you that you did something they don't like. Unless it's someone you genuinely value - your spouse or parent, for example - those are empty words. I personally couldn't care less whether some random person thinks I should be ashamed or not.

The "if it feels good, do it" philosophy is bunk.

If it feels good, why wouldn't you do it?

Certainly doing it, whatever it may be, to excess is probably going to be bad. But in moderation, as a responsible human being, why not? Why not have sex? Why not eat cake? Why not drink beer? Why not go skiing? Why not read a book? Is there something inherently noble in depriving yourself of pleasure? Is there something wrong with enjoying yourself?

Degeneracy can be fun but it's hard to keep up as a serious lifetime occupation.

Most of the time "degeneracy" is a subjective label. If you agree with what someone is doing, to the extent that they're doing it, they're OK. If you don't agree with it, or if they're doing it too much, they're degenerate. And what exactly we label as "degenerate" is strongly influenced by our own morals and values - not any objective analysis.

If someone likes to read books, are they degenerate? What if they go through a book every single night? What if they avoid social contact in favor of reading? What if they get so hooked on reading that it starts affecting their work? What if they just can't put down a book during lunch and never get that TPS report done? Are they degenerate? Somehow that word just doesn't seem to fit, does it? Addicted maybe... They've certainly got issues... But degenerate?

Now what if they really like having sex? What if they have sex with someone different every night? What if they spend all their time trying to hook up with a new partner? What if their sexual encounters start affecting their work? What if they get caught fooling around with someone during lunch? I'm guessing the world "degenerate" seems a lot more fitting in this case.

Most of the western world (not just the US) has been conditioned by immersion in Judeo-Christian values to view sex as somehow separate from normal life activities. It's something secret, sacred, or dirty that polite people don't really talk about. It's something that should only happen between married couples... Or something that should only happen with a certain frequency... Or something that shouldn't involve people of the same gender, or power tools, or animals, or chains, or whatever... Sex has values and judgments attached to it that eating, for example, doesn't. Yet both of those are completely natural, and often pleasurable, parts of human existence.

Re:Promiscuity

[Kokuyo]

My point exactly.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

IMO people would be a *lot* better off being taught healthy norms about sex and encouraged to have more healthy sex

Healthy norms about sex is not the same thing as promiscuity. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Healthy would be to not obsess about it in either direction.

Re:Promiscuity

[miketee]

Whatever the merits of promiscuity, the TFA itself (or the research ) doesn't mention it!. Please, RTFA!

A careful reading of the summary (RTFS?) shows that:

The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to TV viewing."

So the evaluation of promiscuity seems to belong to the writer of the summary, or at least those they refer to.

I agree with what others have said here about correlation vs causation. There could be several explanations for the correlation, although sitting in front of the TV not exercising (and also exposing one self to household contaminants for longer) certainly seems a bad thing.

Re:Promiscuity

[Evil Shabazz]

Very little research in today's age is not suspect. Research costs money, and far too often than not, the desire behind the money bleeds into the results. Then you have to also account for the bias of the media outlet that's reporting on the research. Of course, there is a lot of independent, unbiased research, but there is more than enough junk science and politically motivated altering of science that it taints anything one can read about it outside of closed industry journals.

Re:Promiscuity

[cayenne8]

Who needs research?

I think even a little common sense would show that kids need to be outside playing, and getting exercise that comes naturally from that!!

When I grew up...during the summers off school...I was up and out about 9-10am...playing with my friends in the neighborhood. Skateboarding around, swimming in the neighborhood pool, sometimes 'stealing' wood from local house construction, to build forts in the woods nearby, or skateboard ramps at the end of our street, riding bikes around, etc.

We always had something to do....all my friends (I'm still in touch with most of the main ones I grew up with) were pretty much all raised by all of our parents, in that the group was always at one person's house or another.

This was before cell phones...when I was really young (in the 10-12 range) I made sure and called home to check in with my Mom from wherever I was at. When both my parents were working..I'd call and check in during the day periodically at their workplace. Thing is....we were out and playing and doing something whenever possible.

Granted, we only had 3-4 channels, but, while growing up, cable made it into our neighborhood, yet we still didn't spend 24/7 watching the damned thing, not during the days when there were things to do.

Hell, when was the last time you saw a group of kids in someones's front yard playing "kill the man with the ball"?

*sigh*

Re:Promiscuity

[that IT girl]

But it is hard to deny that most people DO enter purely sexual relationships with selfish intentions. It feels good and they want to do it. I'm not saying either extreme (very conservative or promiscuous) is right, just pointing out that the types of relationships you and the parent poster were referring to may be quite different.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably down to the problem of spreading STDs, and young girls are also more liable to get cervical cancer later in life if they're sexually active.

Not a problem for anyone here though.

Re:Promiscuity

[Hatta]

If you're feeling empty and lonely, you're not a very good hedonist. There's nothing wrong with being a hedonist, pleasure is good, pain is bad. You just have to be sure your strategy is to maximize total lifetime pleasure, instead of trading future pleasure for immediate pleasure. A real hedonist who values pleasure above all else would realize that the greatest pleasure comes from making others happy.

Re:Promiscuity

[sjames]

While not inevitable, promiscuity DOES increase the risks of several undesirable outcomes substantially.

Re:Promiscuity

[geminidomino]

I don't know if you're older than I, or just didn't have cable (it's the "3 channels" bit that I'm taking as an indicator) but you're spot on.

When I was growing up (80s), even though we had video games, we were social. Back then, you still had kids who would walk down the block, knock on his friends' door and ask if Joey could come out and play. Everyone had the story where they lost track of where they were going with their bikes and ended up in the next town. Or just beat the crap out of each other in the backyard with wiffle bats and snowballs.

Nowadays, "Can Joey come out to play" has been replaced with fucking "play dates?" And they wonder about rising levels of depression in children? Part of the price of being an adult is being locked in inane, rigid structure. Why the hell subject a 7 year old to that? Let the kids be fucking kids, rather than soiling yourself when little Brittney wants to rollerskate because she might scrape her knee.

Carlin was right. These people are fucked up, they're fucking up their kids, and in a single-digit number of generations, we're gonna be looking at a fucking society of Eloi.

Re:Promiscuity

[geminidomino]

Given how few teenagers are responsible enough to use protection, thus opening themselves to the risk of STDs and pregnancy, yeah, it's undesirable.

You can't discount the possibility that part of that issue is the fact that we[0] repeatedly REFUSE TO FUCKING TELL THEM about protection, consequences, etc. Instead we try to take some archaic, puritanical moralist pulpit on the subject.

And they don't listen to us? Utterly fucking shocking.

[0]By we, I don't mean those present. I mean as an aggregate fuckwitted society.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

I think people are getting close to confusing promiscuity with having lots of sex. Having lots of sex is not undesirable, and you're right in that an objection to it (especially before marriage) is purely religious. Having a serious relationship or few that involves sex is perfectly healthy.

However, the more promiscuous one is, the more risks there are. STDs and psychological issues are well documented here. So I think true promiscuity is an undesirable trait for the health of society, but there's nothing wrong with lots of sex.

Re:Promiscuity

[DrLang21]

Really? I know a lot of former hippies that turned out just fine. Go to a folk festival some time. You'll see plenty of hippies who are quite happy.

Re:Promiscuity

[Mister Whirly]

Ditto with my experience. Even though we had computers, and the Atari or Intellivision around at my house when I was growing up, we played outside way more than we hung out indoors. I was lucky that I had 2 parks both within easy walking distance of my house and they both had baseball diamonds (and hockey rinks in the winter). Construction and development of land that had been previously fields and swamps was really taking off where I lived also, so we ended up "borrowing" a lot of materials as well to make skateboard ramps, etc. There were also about 6-7 other kids on my block that were all within a few years either way of my age, so there was always something going on on the block - softball, kickball, flashlight tag, skateboarding, BMX biking, etc. Summers were the best though when you didn't have to go to school. Most days I would be up by 8 or 9 and be outside until I got hungry around noon, stop home for a quick sandwich, and back out until dinner time. After dinner we would usually go out again until it was dark, but would usually play after dark for a bit too. I ended up being the first one on the block when cable came to my neighborhood (probably 1981 or so) and we did watch a little more tv once that happened, (especially that new MTV station that literally had about 16 videos they played over and over when they started) but still spent a great deal of time outside too.

I was over at a friend's house last summer, and his little brother was visiting. He was parked in front of the Xbox 360 playing some game. I noticed a soccer ball near his other stuff and asked him if he wanted to play some soccer. Without even looking up from the game he was playing, he replied "I don't have FIFA for Xbox." I think everything has been reduced to a console game now. I wonder when they are going to just come out with a video game where all you do in the game is play video games....

Re:Promiscuity

[Tubal-Cain]

I also played outside (this during the 90s... I was less than 10) along with my brother, sister, and another kid in the neighborhood. Biking, rollerblading, endless hours on a trampoline, climbing an olive tree, various incarnations of tag, a treehouse, wiffle ball, frying ants with a magnifying glass...
We didn't even own a TV until I was at least 8, and that was second-hand from my uncle.

Re:Promiscuity

[drinkypoo]

I think even a little common sense would show that kids need to be outside playing, and getting exercise that comes naturally from that!!

There are counterexamples. For instance, when smog is high, it's best to try to use your lungs as little as possible (I'm not kidding.) Exercise will do more harm than good. Don't go jogging in Los Angeles when the wind is blowing strongly onshore, you'll be sucking enough Chinese pollution to undo any good work you've done. The same thing was happening from Los Angeleno pollution, except worse; kids were getting lesions on their lungs and coughing up blood due to breathing LA's toxic debt. However, the CARB took all kinds of drastic air pollution-reduction measures which the citizenry largely hated, and actually saved the say (until China started to industrialize en masse.)

Re:Promiscuity

[mowall]

In the course of my life I've changed "partners" several times.

Having just noticed your username, I'm not sure if you're talking about real people here! ;)

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

"She's a slut. BONG!" - Jay

Re:Promiscuity

[shambalagoon]

Great post, Ephemeriis.

I'd add to it this - that everything we do is hedonistic and everything we do is selfish. The reason being that depending on one's belief system, one could refrain from sex, drugs, and rock and roll because it makes them feel good to feel in control of themselves, or because they believe it leads to the ultimate pleasure - heaven. It makes them feel good. It's hedonism. Likewise, someone could push someone out of the way of a runaway car, thereby saving the person and taking on injuries. But why would someone do this seemingly selfless act? To preserve the life of someone you care about, perhaps, so you can continue to spend time with them, or in order to be a hero, or think of yourself as a courageous, altruistic person. Selfish, at root. And that's not a bad thing - neither of these things is! It's just how humanity works. You can't get around it.

So that given, it comes down to the belief systems that structure a person's ideas as to what exactly will lead him to the greatest pleasure.

Re:Promiscuity

[cayenne8]

"There are counterexamples. For instance, when smog is high, it's best to try to use your lungs as little as possible (I'm not kidding.) Exercise will do more harm than good. Don't go jogging in Los Angeles when the wind is blowing strongly onshore, you'll be sucking enough Chinese pollution to undo any good work you've done. The same thing was happening from Los Angeleno pollution, except worse; kids were getting lesions on their lungs and coughing up blood due to breathing LA's toxic debt. However, the CARB took all kinds of drastic air pollution-reduction measures which the citizenry largely hated, and actually saved the say (until China started to industrialize en masse.)"

Interesting example for sure, but, I'd have to put forth, that this type of thing is VERY limited...not many cities have this type of air pollution problems.

Hell, where I live, we don't even do sniff tests on cars for emissions....and we don't have air problems.

In L.A. (not to be confused with the state of LA), this isn't a new problem, I'd have guessed with all that spending they've been doing...do they not have a lot of indoor activity centers for the kids to do physical play/exercise to protect the lungs?

It isn't so much a matter of where they get outta the house to go to, but, just getting out and being active somewhere...

Re:Promiscuity

[drinkypoo]

Interesting example for sure, but, I'd have to put forth, that this type of thing is VERY limited...not many cities have this type of air pollution problems.

Not yet.

Hell, where I live, we don't even do sniff tests on cars for emissions....and we don't have air problems.

We should all be doing sniff tests. They need to institute emissions standards for motorcycles, too. They emit more pollution than cars do now, mile for mile. And some cars (notably Golf and Jetta TDI) get fuel mileage comparable to motorcycles (and in most cases, better.)

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, when was the last time you saw a group of kids in someones's front yard playing "kill the man with the ball"?

*sigh*

You're right. Not since--

Hey, you damn kids! Get off my lawn!

Sorry, where was I?

Re:Promiscuity

[bugi]

Is it only wheezing slobs from Scotland who grow up with an open mind about sex, or is it wheezing slobs everywhere?

I wish somebody'd told me this earlier. I could've focused my hunt a lot better.

Re:Promiscuity

[russotto]

For an 11-year-old? Um... ok, if you say so.

Yep, especially when you consider another recent study which showed that a child's IQ is inversely correlated with the age of his father.

Re:Promiscuity

[cayenne8]

"We should all be doing sniff tests. They need to institute emissions standards for motorcycles, too. They emit more pollution than cars do now, mile for mile. And some cars (notably Golf and Jetta TDI) get fuel mileage comparable to motorcycles (and in most cases, better.)"

Oh..please don't say that...they might be listening to ya.

:)

I'm glad, though, that the state I live is is more free with things like this, I'm about to swap out the air intake and exhaust system on my car for more performance. Basically I'm replacing everything before and after the turbo. I think most all of the stuff is CA approved (CARB?), but, some may not.

And I like aftermarket pipes on my bike...I like a bit of a loud sound (not too obnoxious) and low rumble when I ride my cruiser about town. Half the fun of a bike or performance car is the performance 'sound' you get out of them when you hit the gas.

Re:Promiscuity

[drinkypoo]

I'm glad, though, that the state I live is is more free with things like this, I'm about to swap out the air intake and exhaust system on my car for more performance. Basically I'm replacing everything before and after the turbo. I think most all of the stuff is CA approved (CARB?), but, some may not.

It is unfortunate that getting a CARB E.O. number (the turbo kit on my F250's E.O. number is D-171-5 - I was just looking it up so happen to have it handy - this is like the fifth or sixth revision of the E.O. which must be released year-by-year, but they didn't actually even require re-testing for an entire engine displacement change!) does add some cost for what is not necessarily even worth testing - in some cases. It does mostly harm the backyard mechanic. On the other hand, the results are quite positive.

And I like aftermarket pipes on my bike...I like a bit of a loud sound (not too obnoxious) and low rumble when I ride my cruiser about town. Half the fun of a bike or performance car is the performance 'sound' you get out of them when you hit the gas.

Your right to fun ends when it interferes with everyone else's right to breathe. Incidentally, CARB regs don't preclude replacement of the header, although they do add some cost - it seems to add about $100 to the price of an aftermarket header to get one that's got an E.O. number. They also don't preclude replacement of the catalyst, and you can get those in high-flow models. Finally, they don't say anything about what happens anywhere but between the air filter and the catalyst, so you can still do cat-back and filter-forward modifications with complete impunity. Thus, the only parts of the modification which are necessarily made more expensive are turbos, computer mods, intakes, and exhausts. This is something of a burden, but none of those harm the average consumer at all; most of them will not upgrade any of these things. Requiring the enthusiasts to bear the added cost is fairly reasonable.

Keep in mind that I like to drive. But on the other hand, I think we all have a responsibility to try to minimize our output. If I can find a carbon-neutral source of methanol or ethanol I'll be much of the way there, I just put a biodiesel processor in my garage and I'm about to build a Savonius vertical wind turbine system to provide the (substantial) electrical energy which goes into the process for pumping, agitation, and heat. I now have a car and a truck which are both turbo-diesels; the car needs fuel lines to run on B100, the truck is already ready. I intend to add a veggie-burning system to the truck as well, but that can happen down the road. Right now I have to figure out how to get the drum of methanol home. :) (I have to go out and get a new fuel filter for my 4x4 beast today, so it can go down the road without pouring out unburned hydrocarbons.)

Re:Promiscuity

[PitaBred]

Only for the individual, not in a society. Promiscuity breaks down social bonds which keep neighbors from killing each other, so it's generally frowned upon in larger groups.

Re:Promiscuity

[PitaBred]

Didn't you know that there are molesters and child abductors around every corner, just waiting for an unprotected child to come by? It's not safe to let your child out of the house without you watching them!

Re:Promiscuity

[Gizzmonic]

You can't discount the possibility that part of that issue is the fact that we[0] repeatedly REFUSE TO FUCKING TELL THEM about protection, consequences, etc. Instead we try to take some archaic, puritanical moralist pulpit on the subject.

You mean about how when you love a lady very much, Juffo-Wup fills in your fibers, and then you grow turgid?

Re:Promiscuity

[Defector!!!]

I'll disagree about one particular point here:

"Sex has values and judgments attached to it that eating, for example, doesn't"

Not in any world I've lived in. The choices people make about the food they eat IS frequently judged and valued. The term "fat slob" comes to mind first here, as it's a value judgment about a whole person made from looking at one particular aspect of their behavior - their eating habits. Eating habits are frequently "disgusting" or "tidy", and people's choices of meals are "wholesome" or even "revolting". All of these terms are my attempt to illustrate one important thing: everything about you gets judged. I don't mean this in any religious sense either, it is a simple fact of life though that those around you judge your character constantly and through every action you take (or don't take).

In fact, I bet that if people were truly honest about how often you make value judgments on a person based on a small sample of their behavior (clothes, food, manner of speech, etc), we wouldn't have any room to talk about anything else.

Re:Promiscuity

[Jorophose]

It depends where you are, though. I think this whole city-living has killed being a kid.

When I was growing up I didn't have any kids in my neighbourhood, let alone any my age. What was I going to do? I went out and played, sure, and my dad would bring me places too.

But not everyone got the chance to grow up in a small town out in the middle of nowhere, biking from town to town. I wish I lived that life... it would have been so much cooler.

Re:Promiscuity

[Anonymous Coward]

Except motorcycles don't take nearly as much space in traffic, or parking. And no, you don't get the same mileage. The motorcycles get the same high mileage in city while the cars' drops considerably.

Re:Promiscuity

[xaxa]

I moved to London when I was 18 (for university). I wish I'd grown up here as a kid. There's so many parks, and people (and free buses for under 16s).

Where I did grow up, there weren't many kids around, and my parents wouldn't let me go anywhere alone -- even though it was in the top 10 safest areas in England. If I'd been in a city like London, I'd have had to be given more freedom -- driving me to school would have been ridiculous, for instance.

There are (hopefully!) much nicer places than London to be a kid, but I haven't lived in them yet.

Re:Promiscuity

[jlehtira]

Let the kids be fucking kids

I definitely agree. Kids shouldn't be fucking adults!

Re:Promiscuity

[cayenne8]

The life I lived growing up, was hardly rural. I've always lived in cities. All in the south of the US. Here, we have good sized cities, but, hardly the urban things they have like in NYC. No, we were not stacked on each other, we have neighborhoods with houses with lawns, neighborhood pools.

I'd dare say there are many more of those in the US, than the big urban settings like NYC or Chicago.

Re:Promiscuity

[geminidomino]

Small town in the middle of Nowhere? I'm from Hempstead, NY. More populous than San Francisco.

Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an interesting result that certainly warrants further study but IMHO everything about this study just screams "correlation is not causation".

What if healthier kids just enjoy playing outside more? What if healthier parents (who didn't have asthma themselves as children) encourage their kids to play outside more. What about kids in urban environments with high levels of air pollution who don't really have anywhere to go outside to play (without getting shot in a drive-by).

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yupe that still means "Hey everyone, look what happens if you don't encourage kids to play outside and you let companies spew whatever they want into the air"

You don't need a cause to take action (as long as that action won't cause worse things to happen). Nothing in life is certain and there's typically very few problems with a root cause nowadays (especially with health)

This whole smart ass retort/meme just needs to go away since everyone hides behind it because they're too lazy to act.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[rrohbeck]

Exercise has been proven to reduce Asthma. It can even fix it in adults although it has to be dosed very carefully. There are elite runners (can't remember a name though) who started running to curb their Asthma.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Suisho]

I don't think this is necessarily completely true. I have exercise induced asthma, which, means basically the harder I breathe the more constricted my airways become. >.> But- I was encouraged to do specific breathing exercises (especially as a child), and I did do sports with an excessive amount of medication. I think this might be true for some...but I don't know of any particular studies.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[cosmicwave]

I suspect I have exercise induced asthma as well, especially in the cold air. I went biking this morning and tried to concentrate on not breathing too shallow or hard, but I still ended up feeling like I couldn't breathe and my chest hurt really bad. Likewise, when I run, I feel enough energy to but I have to stop because of the breathing problems. I'm thinking about getting an inhaler - I don't want it to stop me from working out.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this rumour that athletes love to have asthma, as the medication seems to be on the banned substances list. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734328641.html

But isn't it all much simpler and everything was already in the story, but they had to drag in the TV in the conclusion?

Where do people usually watch TV? Not outside! They watch it in the clean, central heated living room, on a soft furnished couch with lots of dust mites. DUH!

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Suisho]

Sounds like it- cold air seems to be a common irritant. Webmd has a decent article on it. *shrugs*
I was pretty much born with it (it goes back at least 3 generations and I was dx'ed at 2) so I never got the chance to exercise without it. I have pretty bad asthma too- I was on constant medication for years, and it ended up causing alot of problems due to immunosuppression as a side effect of specific steroids, which at the time was the best was to deal with it.

Exercise and lung capacity was a proverbial nightmare for me- I couldn't run around a t-ball field without using a nebuluizer (the machines which produce a fine medicated myst sort of like a humidifier)- forget the inhalers, they were not strong enough. Hense, I am on slashdot as an adult, and not a gymrat. My inactivity has also made my occurrence of asthma attacks go down, as I am not stressing my lungs out like I did when I was a kid. Resting has produced many benefits- but at the same time, it produces many fallbacks- my air capacity is smaller (so, when I am having trouble breathing, each breath has less air than if I did exercise every day), and the general exhaustion out of shapeness that comes with being a lazy bum.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Bootarn]

I have a theory.

Scientists say that there is a correlation between growing up in a relatively dust-free environment and developing asthma. Kids who are playing outside are exposed to dust and don't become hypersensitive to it, whereas kids who spend much time in front of the TV are rarely exposed to outside dust, and so they develop asthma.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[jandersen]

everything about this study just screams "correlation is not causation".

I think what scream loudest in this case is that you are uncomfortable with the implications; perhaps there are things in your lifestyle you don't want to change?

Taken in isolation this kind of study does seem a little bizarre, and the way it is presented in the popular media doesn't help either, when it is reported as if it was a kind of joke. However, it is part of a growing trend that seems to indicate that a lot of illnesses are actually lifestyle diseases, and there is growing evidence that one common factor is inflammation - or the presence of certain indicators of inflammation, I should say. Inflammation seems to lie behind such things as atherosclerosis, insulin resistence, and of course it is known to a major symptom in asthma. The adipose tissues of obese people seem to be the seat of low-level inflammation too, or something very similar. Now, I don't know about you, but when I see all these things together, I don't think it is all that unlikely that sitting in front of the telly instead of getting up and about actually is a major causative factor in these lifestyle diseases, asthma included.

It is also well-known that exercise actually is a very effective way of lowering the levels of inflammation in places where you don't want it - perhaps because exercise actually causes low-level damage to muscles and connective tissue; this sort of draws the attention of the body's repair system away from the places where it is not actually supposed to be. Inflammation is an important part of the repair system, which is why muscles get sore from exercise.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Tellarin]

So you took the same course as this guy?
http://www.xkcd.com/552/

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Still I wonder if the same finding would persist in sedantary lifestyle that occurred outdoors, say on the beach. It could be that the outgassing of materials/plastics/shower curtains inside the home creates asthmatic inducing conditions.
Just wondering.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[rtb61]

Lazy parents who use the TV as a baby sitter for hours on end are also likely to be lazy when it comes to preparing healthy meals and resort to take away meals and junk food snacks. Also children that suffer from asthma are likely to prefer less arduous activities, like watching TV, in order to reduce the risk of an attack.

As for the growth in asthma, increasing levels of exotic pollutants (that generate hormonal reactions in people) plus the effects of junk food consumption during pregnancy are the most likely the culprits.

Feeding neuro stimulant so called 'flavour enhancers' to unborn children is most likely not the brightest idea in the world and maybe the future health of an unborn generation should be put ahead of the profits of junk food and chemical additive manufacturers.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[messner_007]

"Yupe that still means "Hey everyone, look what happens if you don't encourage kids to play outside and you let companies spew whatever they want into the air"

It doesn't. You are making the same mistake, those "researchers" are doing. You don't know why some people are more active and some are less.

Nothing in life is certain

For example ... If you ingest a certain amount of Polonium ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium ) ... I can guarantee you, what will happen in a week or two. I can guarantee you also what will happen when a truck full of cement drives over you. Some things are pretty certain in live.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[p1ckled]

There are Elite runners that claim they have Asthma in the belief that the drugs used to treat Asthma have performance benefits.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[KevInSweden]

Paula Radcliffe is one elite distance runner who suffers from it.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[commodore64_love]

I played with farm animals when I was a child (cows, horses, goats, rabbits). I ran through hayfields and cornfields and often ended-up covered head-to-toe with pollen. I'm now immune to any smell, and have no allergy to anything.

Perhaps I should recommend the farm lifestyle to more people - exposure leads to immunity.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

those of us with asthma would love to be able to scream about this study. Trouble is, I'd probably just having a coughing fit...

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm now immune to any smell...

I have a turd for you to whiff.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why the study says "link" and not "cause". The study is reporting a correlation and a correlation is something that indicates further study would be nice.

For example: Let's say you find what looks to be a similar bug in two different spots of code but you know that the code path doesn't go through both. Maybe you should be looking at a point where the code paths intersect or overlap instead of saying "Correlation is not causation therefore these two things are not connected even though I can demonstrate some link between the two."

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[khakipuce]

My thoughts exactly, other studies have also linked asthma to overly clean environments and obviously the more time inside, the less time outside gettting dirty. I also belive that obesity causes diabetes and smoking around children increases the risk of asthma, so if there is a correlation between obesity and TV watching and smoking and TV watching then the others probably follow. Lets be honest, smoking and obesity are very likely to reduce the inclination to get out and exercise, so the alternative is to stay in and watch TV - hence the correlation.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[smooth wombat]

I played with farm animals when I was a child

So you're from Perry County then?*&**

*I know you're from PA, as am I, so just joking. Don't know if you're local to me.

** Inside joke for those from Central PA. Soft of like folks from Vermont/New Hampshire who wear boots and work around sheep

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[e2d2]

Agreed, it's gonna depend on a person's triggers.

I have had asthma since I was 5 (I am now 34) and I ride 10 miles a day on my bicycle and exercise regularly. It hasn't gotten any better for me because mine is exercise-induced (along with other triggers like cold air), specifically the bouncing motion of running, that causes an attack. How do I know this? A few days of study by the US army to determine my triggers at Ft. Knox when I was there during basic.

The simple fact is there is very little known about the disease. What causes it? Scientists are unsure. Can you get rid of it? Not according to anything I have read, you can only reduce and control it.

I like that this is being studied. I hope one day humanity will be able to cure this disease because it truly is a pain in the ass and left uncontrolled it can kill.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[maxume]

People that work with laboratory animals (rats and so forth) often become hyper sensitive. Exposure leads to sensitivity.

Or maybe it is more complicated.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Belial6]

Can I add Wall-to-Wall carpets. The massive increases in asthma seem to be correlated more with the move from hard floors to carpeted floors. Floors that are literally impossible to get clean. The floors that people put their babies face down on. That babies suck up stuff from literally like a vacuum cleaner.

Of course the fact that it says "TV" is correlated with asthma when they mean "being seditary" shows a massive bias. We see these reports of how TV causes health problems because it makes you seditary, but not once have I heard about books causing health problems.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Candid88]

Correlation vs. Causation? Wow, why didn't the researchers think of that?

..actually they did, it's discussed in quite some detail (too much for me to examine right now, but it's definitely discussed). The paper was published in the respected Thorax journal (published by the British Medical Association http://thorax.bmj.com/).

Respectable journals tend to check that such issues have been closely examined, even if journalists rarely bother mentioning it.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[mysticgoat]

While definitely true in many cases, again this is a matter of correlation and does not imply that exercise causes a reduction in asthma. Other possibilities are that some asthmatics who are successful in adopting exercise regimens also change their diet, or start using a different kind of mental discipline, or any of a myriad of other things might be going on that are related to, but independent of, the exercise itself.

I grew up with asthma, hospitalized with it when I was 6, crippled by it until I was about 13. Then I made a conscious choice not to be asthmatic any more. It still definitely affected me, but there was an immediate improvement in the severity of the attacks, and over the next 20 years my asthmatic episodes continued to get milder, of shorter duration, and much less frequent. By my late thirties I was saying that I had outgrown it (though with some denial for some mild problems on rare occasion, usually exercise induced). Then it got worse for a while in my early fifties. But I realized that there was a correlation between asthma attacks and ingestion of High Fructose Corn Syrup, and by avoiding HFCS, I've become nearly asthma free again.

I'm not sure what it is about the HFCS: it did not exist when I was young so it certainly did not cause my asthma. But the increase in asthma in USA children does seem to parallel the increase in consumption of HCFS, so I'm thinking that the stuff might have some influence on the disease. I urge anyone with asthma to consider avoiding HCFS for a few weeks as a trial. It has less nutritive value than pure sugar, so going without isn't going to screw up any diets.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[usman_ismail]

As a life long asthma sufferer I can say exercise does help greatly. I am felling much better and have increased lung capacity since I started playing squash regularly.

As for the Correlation vs causation most diseases like asthma are a caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.This study just illustrates that TV viewing maybe one of the environmental factors.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[usman_ismail]

I don't think you understand the cause of asthma and related allergies. The problem is not a lack of immunity but your body's immune system reacting to things it does not really need to attack, i.e. pollen, dust etc. The symptoms are caused by your own body not the allergen.So in short developing an immunity to farm animals is not the cure to asthma.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[swganle]

Although I completely agree that exercise is good and its very important for people of all ages to be involved in it...

I find it very disturbing that such a study does not have a recommendation against reading books for too long or too often, as movement wise, there is little or no difference between sitting on ones rear in front of the TV and sitting on ones rear reading a book for a few hours.

Besides all that, I always find it sad when a single study is done on 3,000 or so people and some then tries to portray it as a ground breaking discovery that is already proven...
but:
> There are over 6.7 billion people on the planet according to some sources, so 3,000 is about .00004477% of the planets population
> No scientific studies are ever worth anything, in the vast majority of cases, unless/until they are show to be repeatable by others
> TV watching in this case was used as a measure of sedentary behavior, neglecting several other major activities, like reading and playing boardgames which are also sedentary.
> The study mentions nothing about air quality in the area of residence of the children
...to point out a few issues

I was going to put a Scott Adams quote here about the three different kinds of statistics, but I couldn't find it before I got tired of looking...

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[cparker15]

Right. There are different types of asthma. While some types may be reduced or eliminated by something like running, other types of asthma may be worsened, and running could end up killing the asthmatic. It's possible the effects of "allergic asthma" could be reduced by exercise.

It seems to me like "asthma" is more of a catch-all term used to describe multiple diseases/disorders that happen to present themselves in a similar manner.

I, too, have asthma. Mine is triggered by:

• excessive physical activity (moderate exercise usually isn't a problem)
• allergies (e.g.: cat hair)
• very strong smells
• most perfumes
• cigarette smoke
• gusts of cold air
• hot, humid air
• high levels of stress

Despite all of these triggers, I have things pretty much under control with daily medications (allergy and asthma), a "rescue" inhaler as needed, and special breathing techniques. I played youth soccer and I was a trumpet and french horn player in my high school's marching and concert bands, although these activities became more difficult the older I got.

My asthma is hereditary, though, so this study really wouldn't apply to me. (I've had asthma since birth.)

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[DigitalCrackPipe]

Or, to throw another twist into that: Indoor air quality is sometimes worse than outdoor due to reducing building breathing (to increase heating/cooling efficiency) and all sorts of toxic materials (off-gassing plastics, misc. fibers, dust from the cat box, etc.). Maybe just being sedentary inside is a sufficient cause for decreased lung ability.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Kryptal]

TV is an activity that people participate in while not exercising. The TV viewing isn't causing asthma, its just used to generate noise and page hits.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

If that was true, then it wouldn't be the tv, but the lack of exercise.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[ildon]

I think what scream loudest in this case is that you are uncomfortable with the implications; perhaps there are things in your lifestyle you don't want to change?

What the fuck? Did you even read anything of his post beyond the title? How can you go from "there are likely other root causes of which increased TV watching is merely a simultaneous symptom/result" (the gist of the GPP) to "YOU JUST WANT TO JUSTIFY SITTING IN FRONT OF THE TV ALL DAY" (the gist of your first sentence)?

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points I'd mod you up. People seem to be ill informed and not understand exercise induced asthma exists.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[himi]

I strongly recommend that you look just a /tiny/ little bit deeper than the summary of the article. This was /not/ a study about asthma - this was a single result from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (google it), which is a large scale, long term study of children, their parents, and their environments (~14,000 kids, studied since pregnancy in 1991/1992, and still ongoing).

This kind of study /can't/ realistically make recommendations, unless the correlations they see are so strong that they can be confident of the causation without further study. What this (and other studies like it) are about is finding correlations that then drive further research - the further research is where recommendations come from.

Oh, and the notion that a study with only 3000 data points can't reliably tell us anything about the general population is pure ignorance on your part. Go look up a little bit about statistics before you spout any more crap like that.

himi

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[jandersen]

Yes, you are of course right in all this, but the point is - a certain type of people, let's put it that way, a certain type of people stumble over a piece of research like this, completely ignore the context and start spouting silly nonsense by the gallon. This article is just one more case in point.

This kind of research cannot be taken out of context - as you say, one might have pounced on reading or video games instead, so why pick on tv? Well, unlike reading and playing computer games, tv really is something everybody in all age groups do; I suspect that everybody knows at least one or two people who don't read books or play computer games every day, but there really aren't many who don't sit down to watch tv every day, at least for something like an hour. So, if tv viewing is in some way bad for you, that is potentially a much bigger problem for society than, say, the hazards of sword swallowing.

It is when you add it all up that this kind of research gains weight - one study is not conclusive, but if we perform thousands of studies and they all point in the same direction, I think we can begin to draw conclusions. And as I said in my original posting, there are many reasons why we wouldn't be surprised to find a connection between tv viewing and asthma.

I think the thing that really riles me when I see this kind of reporting is that it is so disingenious; this is written by somebody who genuinely wants to find the truth, it is just somebody who doesn't want people - himself included - to face up to an inconvenient fact. We see this all the time - a couple of decades ago it was the tobacco industry paying people to ridicule the idea that smoking causes cancer and other diseases, in the recent past it has been things like the professional climate-sceptics and the Creationists. There is a number of people out there who for some reason have an interest in the public not understanding science and knowing the truth; they know that public don't know all that much about hard core scientific research, and that you can confuse them by obfuscating and fudging up genuine research in the news.

It is all about power - democracy can be a real pain if people are allowed to form their own opinion based on facts, because then they are harder to control; which is why certain people in power are anti-intellectual. And that is likely the reason why bumbling clowns like GWB have been allowed to be president - so people can see that "this is the way we should all be", you know "honest, plain and relying on gut instinct and faith".

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[rtb61]

Carpets is a tricky one unless you are specifically talking about synthetics. After all in times past, you had rugs and, heavy drapes all struggling with efficient word burning heating systems and of course nomads spent their whole life huddled in fabric and hide tents on fabric and hide floors, all swaddled up in fabric and hide and all clustered together a rife breeding environment for pests and parasites.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[rtb61]

Outdoor air quality as well, consider bitumen roads. There is absolutely no monitoring of bitumen for toxic chemicals it is simply a waste product of the oil refinery process and you get what you get.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[Belial6]

Until "wall to wall carpeting", rugs could be taken outside and beat. Wall to wall carpeting never gets that. Of course, as you point out, there has also been a change in what our little biological vacuum cleaners are sucking out of the rugs.

Re:Correlation vs. Causation

[rtb61]

Really at the end of the day it is likely a composite of factors ie. poor junk food diet leads to a disruption of the immune system which in turn makes people more susceptible to environmental pollutants. Similar in the way that consumption of soy damages the digestive system and makes people susceptible to celiac disease, so root cause soy (it various toxic elements) leads to a gluten intolerance.

Repeat after me:

[Jane Q. Public]

"Correlation does not imply causation!"

Re:Repeat after me:

[Anonymous Coward]

See http://xkcd.com/552

Make sure you hover over the comic...

Re:Repeat after me:

[goombah99]

"Correlation does not imply causation!"

I'm not so sure about that.

No doubt the rug rats are inhaling too much carpet dander and scotch guard.

Re:Repeat after me:

[Anonymous Coward]

But it does! I think what you meant to say is it does not equal causation. Which however is a completely redundant remark.

Re:Repeat after me:

[rrohbeck]

See my post above. The causation has been known for a long time. Exercise reduces and can fix Asthma.

Re:Repeat after me:

[Jane Q. Public]

That still does not mean that watching TV causes asthma. If what you state is true, then lack of exercise does. As so often happens, it is actually an EXTERNAL factor (exercise) that links the two. Which actually proves my point: the correlation does not imply that one caused the other. Something else did.

Re:Repeat after me:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fighting an uphill battle. XKCD is a brilliant comic, but it has implied to the geek mob (GM) that correlation implies causation. What the GM fails to realize is that correlation means "we saw A and B at the same time," and makes absolutely no claim - nor has any evidence to suggest - A causes B. But, fuck it, because if it reinforces what they already want to believe is true then correlation is as good as causation.

Maybe they would think more proactively if they didn't spend so much time in front of the television. PopQuiz: is that correlation or causation?

Re:Repeat after me:

[bcattwoo]

Duh. I don't see anywhere where it was explicitly stated or even implied that TV watching directly causes asthma. Looking at what other possible risk factors coincide with excessive boob tube time may lead to being able to what the actual cause(s) is, whether it be lack of exercise, too sterile an environment, poor diet, etc.

Does not add up

[Killer Orca]

Something tells me that an obese smoker with asthma and diabetes isn't going to be successfully promiscuous. At least not with others.

subject

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no a-priori reason why TV or video-games shouldn't be bad for the health. Yet, on /. it seems that anything condemning these is instincively attacked.

Even William Penn critisized the ready availability of *books* for the destructiion of children's imagination.

Of course, I don't think we've lost our imaginative capabilities; however, it seems clear that, compared to cultures without written language, we certainly have impoverished memories.

Let's just admit that being sedentary, which we are, is bad for us.

Also, exposing our human wet-ware to violence, constantly, is also, most likely, bad for us. It doesn't "make us violent," but it does desensitise us to the violence.

Ah well. Sleep calls.

Re:subject

[timmarhy]

it's not REAL violence, that's the problem with your statement. a few pixels exploding in doom is nothing like a real gun shot, it's like comparing the violence in a paper cut to someone being hacked apart and their blood splattering you.

you know what else, a recent study showed tubby nerds lived longer than athletic types, so a certain amount of sedentary life style isn't bad for you. for one our immune systems are stronger because exercise weakens it, we don't get the sporting injuries, we don't get all the sun exposure either.

Re:subject

[fractoid]

As a slightly lard-oriented computer professional ('tubby nerd') I'd like to see this study before I do too much more exercise in an effort to lose weight...

Re:subject

[timmarhy]

google "slightly overweight people live longer". basicly they found being slightly overweight was better for you than being under weight or being obese.

Re:subject

[Chosen Reject]

Did you even google that? If so, did you read beyond the first few sentences in any of the articles? It says that people who are slightly overweight (BMI between 25 and 30) live longer than people who are overweight (BMI > 30) and people who are underweight (BMI 18.5). However, it mentions people who are between 18.5 and 25 are the longest lived people. This should be obvious. In other words, it is saying that people who are slightly off the desired BMI will live longer than people who are way off the desired BMI. Or even more simply, people who are slightly unhealthy live longer than people who are more unhealthy.

What?

[crumbz]

From the summary "undesirable outcomes. . . smoking, and promiscuity, . . . [and] TV viewing."

Wait, these are bad things?

Re:What?

[tttonyyy]

From the summary "undesirable outcomes. . . smoking, and promiscuity, . . . [and] TV viewing."

Wait, these are bad things?

The summary states "tied to TV viewing". Don't know about you, but that sounds pretty bad to me!

undesirable outcomes

[CesiumFrog]

Where is the study showing that TV causes promiscuity that is undesirable?

Computers

[tttonyyy]

Presumably (as far as Asthma goes) the same applies to sitting in front of computers/sitting playing handheld games like the DS. Though it would be interesting to know whether that carries the same correlations with the other undesirable outcomes.

Just unproductive

[tjstork]

What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence.

Re:Just unproductive

[American Terrorist]

What's the point of watching TV if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, some of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence.

Re:Just unproductive

[rrohbeck]

Newsflash: Promiscuity does often make babies.
"Non-paternity" happens in DNA studies with around 5 to 10% probability, depending on the population. I hear the Brits are the, umm, I was tempted to say worst, but I'd have to say most successful at that.
So this is clearly an evolutionary adaptation.

Re:Just unproductive

[rrohbeck]

This is about childhood TV watching. Somehow I think you wouldn't want them to have sex in front of the TV.

Re:Just unproductive

[American Terrorist]

And even when it doesn't make babies it feels damn good. As for GP's claim that it doesn't do anything useful... maybe for those who have been castrated. If I go a few months without sex I start to go somewhat insane, especially around sexy women. If having sex keeps me from embarrassing myself in front of females I find attractive (but really shouldn't even think about trying to fuck), then it's very useful for me.

Re:Just unproductive

[Anonymous Coward]

One of them?

You don't have the same kind of sex that I do...

Re:Just unproductive

[RulerOf]

It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway,

I'm eerily reminded, by the thread you've started here, that the TV will never love anyone back.

Reminds me of some women I've known...

Re:Just unproductive

[Anonymous Coward]

(sarcasm-in-fun)Well, I suppose if the sex you have is always had alone, you COULD say "everyone involved."(/sarcasm-in-fun)

Re:Just unproductive

[DerWulf]

if done right you indulge your partner as well ;) ... anyways, it's fun and it's healthy so why is it termed an undesirable outcome?

Re:Just unproductive

[cayenne8]

"What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence."

Are you seriously asking this question?

Of course it is self indulgence....most people do NOT wanna have a kid as a result of sex, they do it because it is fun and feels GREAT. Most human behavior is self indulgent and we do things because it is pleasurable.

And why would it not be "entertaining" for both of its participants? If it isn't fun for both...you're not doing it right.

:)

Re:Just unproductive

[Anonymous Coward]

...well, one of them anyway...

This just shows how distorted your view of reality is, if you think that only one of the sexes enjoys having sex.

Re:Just unproductive

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? There are plenty of documented real health benefits to having regular sex. Boosted immune system, less depression, more excercise with all the benefits that brings, etc.. Do a google search.

Re:Just unproductive

[DrLang21]

It's also good exercise! I thought they were worried about kids not getting enough exercise.

Re:Just unproductive

[Mister Whirly]

"What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies?"

If you really need to ask this question, you are truly a Slashdotter.

Re:Just unproductive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh.

How else am I supposed to watch TV if they're in front of it?

Re:Just unproductive

[HTH NE1]

I'm eerily reminded, by the thread you've started here, that the TV will never love anyone back.

"Television! Teacher, mother, secret lover."

Filthy carpets

[G3ckoG33k]

In another scientific article researchers link filthy carpets in the living room to asthma, but for some reason that article never made the headlines...

Re:Filthy carpets

[Breakfast Pants]

But there is no correlation between families with filthy carpets, and families that watch TV.

Re:Filthy carpets

[soulrider2k]

Who's to say that simply lying on mite/whatever carpet watching tv for hours on end doesn't have an effect on the lungs of kids...

really, does it have to be TV that causes yet another problem for children?

just an easy target... when was anybody angry at carpet?

Re:Filthy carpets

[AlHunt]

>but for some reason that article never made the headlines...

Great research is often buried. My definitive study, for instance, clearly shows there were NO nuclear bombs before America gave women the right to vote. But do I get any credit for this groundbreaking investigation? Not a bit. I just toil in obscurity ...

Re:Filthy carpets

[DrProton]

You've got it backwards. Asthma is linked with excessive cleanliness. People who are raised on farms and exposed to a lot o dirt don't get asthma. Google "hygiene hypothesis asthma" sometime.

Re:Filthy carpets

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also possible that the TVs in question are CRTs.
CRTs have a high voltage coil that produces ozone.

Its a known respiratory irritant.

Re:Filthy carpets

[Anonymous Coward]

In another scientific article researchers link filthy carpets in the living room to asthma, but for some reason that article never made the headlines...

On the contrary. There are studies that suggest that children in dirtier environments (raised on farms or ranches, for example) have a lower incidence of asthma. One suggestion is that being in an excessively clean environment makes the body overreact to non-harmful levels of airborne contaminants.

Re:Filthy carpets

[scottv67]

You've got it backwards. Asthma is linked with excessive cleanliness. People who are raised on farms and exposed to a lot o dirt don't get asthma. Google "hygiene hypothesis asthma" sometime.

I call bullshit. Living on a farm does not cure/prevent asthma. The more likely theory is that people with asthma find jobs other than working/living on a farm. The people who don't have asthma and choose to live/work on a farm end-up having children that don't have asthma.

Thank you.

[American Terrorist]

This is their bullshit excuse for fucking up the world's air quality. "See, it's not all the coal power plants and diesel trucks, you're watching too much TV!" Did the researchers stop to think that maybe the undiagnosed asthmatics were watching more TV because they didn't like exercising too much because it hurt?

Re:Thank you.

[triffid_98]

I don't quite see what poor air quality has to do with it. Air quality in the 1960's was nothing to get excited about. In first world countries air quality has generally improved quite a lot since then.

In fact, I'm tempted to think the opposite. An overly sterile environment has been theorized to repress childhood immune systems, causing them to become overly sensitized to pollens, dust, etc.

This is their bullshit excuse for fucking up the world's air quality. "See, it's not all the coal power plants and diesel trucks, you're watching too much TV!"

Re:Thank you.

[smellsofbikes]

What you're talking about is called the Hygiene Hypothesis and there's a lot of evidence for it, although it's pretty hard to test.

But as for air quality -- the air quality in large cities was much worse in the '60's, but fewer people lived in cities. Rural air quality has been steadily declining, urban air quality has been increasing rapidly since about 1975, but urban air quality is still poor, especially as regards more or less inert particulates kicked up by traffic, and people keep moving from rural areas to cities throughout the world.

Breathing causes Asthma

[Norsefire]

100% of people who don't breath don't have Asthma.

Re:Breathing causes Asthma

[Anonymous Coward]

And 100% of people who have asthma breath air.

Re:Breathing causes Asthma

[Synthlight]

100% of people who don't breath don't have Asthma.

Correlation != Causation

Re:Breathing causes Asthma

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean he's wrong? I'm shocked! SHOCKED! Thank you great benefactor for showing us the wrongness of our ways!

Bollocks.

[tpgp]

I'm filthy stinking rich and have a REALLY nice sports car.

You know, most of the filthy rich sports car owners I know:

1) Don't sit round big noting themselves on Slashdot.
2) Don't refer to their sports car as a "really nice sports car", but rather something more specific like "a 1967 Jaguar E-type coupe".

I am prepared to believe that you're a smoker & obese.

Re:Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a custom 1985 El-Camino with the steering and pedals extended back to the truck bed and reinforced shocks. It's really sweet. BTW, I'm rich _because_ I'm fat. You heard about that lawsuit that put Burger Chef out of business? Me. My milkshake brings all the girls to the yard.

Re:Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know your full of shit. Slashdot is full of computer geeks. Not car geeks.

Re:Bollocks.

[mad flyer]

Yeah maybe... I'm a car nut. But i'm also practical and my budget only allow me a "car as a tool" kind of car. So the only 3 things I can tell about it is:
-it start all the time
-it's blue
-It fits all my stuff without drama

But while I can state by head all the revision of the engine available for an Alpine 310 V6. I don't even know the capacity or the power output of mine. Just that it really don't use a lot.
(also, that "parking brake instead of a clutch pedal" thing is utter stupidity)

Re:Bollocks.

[Anonymous Coward]

>> It's a custom 1985 El-Camino with reinforced shocks.

so it can carry your fat ass around?

The other hilarity in that sentence is that you seem to believe an El-Camino is a sports car.

Re:Bollocks.

[that IT girl]

Oh, somebody please mod this up. This post almost made me spit my coffee on the keyboard with laughter!

Re:Bollocks.

[that IT girl]

Hey, they aren't mutually exclusive. I like learning about, working on, and operating both. They're actually pretty similar if you think about it. They both have physical parts and (in newer cars anyway) software-like components to master. Both can be operated basically with a low level of knowledge, but there's almost no limit to how deep you can go into it and how well you use them. And both have a loyal fan base that enjoy their unit(s) to it's fullest extent and get annoyed with the idiots who act like assholes with theirs.

Re:Bollocks.

[that IT girl]

^Forgot to add another similarity--Almost everybody has one, and almost every owner is categorised in one of two polar opposite camps: 1) I know everything about and can do anything with one of these, or 2) I know absolutely nothing about how this thing works, I just get on/in it and do a few things I've been taught to do with it.

Re:Bollocks.

[Hillgiant]

Thank goodness, too. Otherwise we might have an automotive analogy for almost every technical issue. ...err wait.

Hi Groklaw reader

[Anonymous Coward]

:)

So, how come you read Groklaw?

[G3ckoG33k]

So, how come you read Groklaw?

The Golden Rule

[Suisho]

Correlation does NOT equal causation.

Re:The Golden Rule

[saiha]

And red does not equal stop sign. If people (people who actually do statistics) thought they were the same then it would be causation coefficient.

Causation?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://xkcd.com/552/

See that...then run an ANOVA, *then* take another look at cause of respiratory problems.

A more obvious association..

[DeadboltX]

Seems to me that time spent inside the home is the more likely culprit than viewed television hours, and that a higher rate of television viewing leads to an increased amount of time spent inside the home.

Re:A more obvious association..

[jacquems]

I would argue that it's also possible that a preference for staying indoors is correlated with undiagnosed asthma. Especially when the weather is hot and humid, it can be very unpleasant for a child with asthma to play outside. Kids would very likely prefer to stay inside their climate-controlled house, where they're more comfortable.

Re:A more obvious association..

[Asic Eng]

Good point. As the article states "The amount of time spent in front of the box was used as a proxy measure of sedentary behaviour, because personal computers and games consoles were not in widespread use at the time (mid 1990s)".

Re:A more obvious association..

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is they tracked whether the TV watching was indoors or outdoors, and found that location wasn't a significant factor.

Yes, I'm kidding.

Re:A more obvious association..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bear in mind this is a UK study. It's hardly ever too hot and humid to play outside -- in fact, the warmest summer months are when we generally try and spend as much time as possible outside (there's a lot of daylight too, sunset at 9pm is more reason to find things to do outside).

Also, I've never seen air conditioning in a house here.

Re:A more obvious association..

[DrProton]

I had the same thought. More time outside the home also exposes the child to more dirt, more bacteria, and more of the tiny little worms out there. The beneficial effect of this exposure is known as the hygiene hypothesis. Kids who grow up on farms and poor people living off the land don't get asthma and a whole host of immune system disorders. There was a recent article by Jane Brody in the New York Times about the hygiene hypothesis.

Basically, a little dirt is good for you.

Re:A more obvious association..

[adri]

The question is how many people in the population / sample have undiagnosed asthma.

Your hypothesis is easy to test.

Of course, the real interesting bit from that is whether it works out better in the long term for that kid to go out and do -some- exercise, and what impact it'd have on their asthma.

Re:A more obvious association..

[tsstahl]

Mod parent up.

A sedentary lifestyle indoors is unhealthy; who'd a thunk it?

In my day we had to breathe underwater and we were THANKFUL for the opportunity. Darn sissys.

Re:A more obvious association..

[Candid88]

And if you can also confirm this in a long-term study and hav your conclusions published in a major peer-reviewed medical journal, I'm sure it will also appear as a story here on Slashdot.

Until then, I'm going to go with the decade and a half of research.

Damnit, modders!

[Jane Q. Public]

Can you at least look at the goddamned timestamp before modding something as "redundant"?? Mine was the second comment in this whole thread!

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

They've modded first on-topic posts redundant before.

I'd already be happy if modders could at least read and understand the post and context before modding.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[linhares]

Can you at least look at the goddamned timestamp before modding something as "redundant"?? Mine was the second comment in this whole thread!

You must be new here.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[saiha]

"Correlation does not imply causation" is said in every topic that has any type of statistics. So while this may have been the first post about it in this topic, its quite redundant.

The correlation coefficient is simply a tool.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Jane Q. Public]

It should be said in most topics that involve statistics. Because when it isn't, people start saying crazy crap like "they have proved that X causes Y", even though it simply isn't so.

It isn't "redundant" unless it's been stated more than once, and if I was the first one to state it, then my comment wasn't redundant.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's the fact that a statistically significant correlation most certainly does imply causation. It's just that the correlation doesn't show which is the cause and which the effect, or if indeed they have any effect on each other: a correlation could be the result of the two measured statistical deviances being caused by a third factor.

Sorry... but overuse of the "correlation does not imply causation" phrase is probably my biggest slashdot pet peeve... probably far more annoying than trolls (to be sure, I do accept that my annoyance may have been fed by trolls overusing the phrase and my mistaking trolling for actual condescending ass-hats.)

Re:Damnit, modders!

[JunkmanUK]

Oh man - and I've just been given mod points... Ok, how should the last post be modded? We don't have a 'disgruntled' category...

Have some coffee and read some Cyanide and Happiness. It's too early to be going crazy over slashdot...

(running internal book on what this will be modded as)

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm not actually angry, and I have plenty of Karma points. I just really am tired of all the crap around here and thought I'd voice my opinion.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just exactly how doesn't a comment that is posted to every goddamn science story not deserve to be modded "redundant"? It's the fucking model of redundancy, you drooling idiot.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

*ahem*

I'm pretty sure 1:58 AM EDT comes before 1:59 AM EDT.

Re:Damnit, modders!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more germane things to say, about being mistaken about the direction the arrow of causation points, which is a far likelier error than the whole thing being a coincidence, which is the sole unhelpful suggestion conveyed by "c!=c".

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

the other way to look at this is that kids with asthma spend time in front of the tv since running around outside may kill them

Re:well...

[avajcovec]

No, even the summary is clear that the TV viewing is correlated with the future development of asthma. These kids didn't necessarily have asthma the entire time they were sitting in front of the TV.

The summary refers to the "association between increased duration of reported TV viewing in early childhood and the development of asthma by 11.5 years of age in children with no symptoms of asthma in early childhood" (emphasis mine)

oh no...

[Eil]

Even though this study raises a lot more questions than answers, I can still hear the horde of TV apologists starting their stampede now...

(Well, once the commercials come on, anyway.)

Day proven not to be cause of night.Released

[infonography]

Judge's ruling sends shockwaves around the world.

In an upset in controversial case Day walked out of court a free person, vows to seek the real cause of night.

Youtube, Blogspot, and slashdot overwhelmed.

-- seriously, many side effects to environmental poisons caused by our rapid growth in technology are still being worked out. Its not that I am calling for any sort of slowdown, but we should not say we are done fixing it and that includes both Eco-friendly tech and more effective production methods.

12 hours outside plus 3 hours TV...

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Well, depending on the day of the week (and weather) during the day, I was either outside for 10 to 12 hours, or in school followed by outside time, then about 3 hours TV in the evening. No asthma.

Though I suppose all that outside activity had something to with with that.

Hmm...

[claybugg]

What about sitting still in a desk at school for hours each day?

Re:Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Instant death.

Re:Hmm...

[cassidylaker]

That can't be the problem; kids rarely sit still at their desks.

Slight correction...

[sixteenbitsamurai]

The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to excessive TV viewing.

This seems more accurate.

Correlation

[Superdarion]

http://www.xkcd.com/552/

To Anonymous:

[Jane Q. Public]

Maybe the reason you see it so much is because you are wrong. So there is no point in getting irritated about it.

Correlation -- all by itself -- most definitely does NOT imply causation. I don't give a damn if the correlation coefficient is 1.0. There is a very strong possibility that some outside influence is the cause of BOTH events.

Re:To Anonymous:

[wish bot]

A strong possibility, eh?

But according to you, Correlation does not imply Causation!!!

Re:To Anonymous:

[Jane Q. Public]

Absolutely. See the example above, where someone posted that lack of exercise may be the actual cause of asthma in these cases.

If we presume that this is correct (and perhaps it is), then indeed, the strong correlation between watching TV and asthma does NOT imply causation at all, on either side. It turns out that BOTH watching television AND asthma are only linked through a third, entirely external factor: exercise.

Now, one could say that watching TV too much will reduce your exercise time. On the other hand, it is probably just as valid to say that people who do not exercise find something else to fill the time, and that something is often TV. Which causes the other? Your guess.

But we do know now that watching TV does not cause asthma, nor does asthma cause watching TV. The correlation did NOT imply causation. Q.E.D.

computrons proven to cause Nerdism in children

[infonography]

Exposure to raw code unfiltered by properly licensed Vista has medically proven cases of Nerdism, Torvalds's syndrome [Linux], and worst of all Advanced Dibley ectmorphia [Duane Dibley] if bitten by a emohawk

Makes Perfect Sense

[DynaSoar]

It's so obvious that it's almost not worth having spent research money on it, but somebody has to prove even the obvious scientifically.

It's a good, solid result: kids with asthma sit around inside a lot (by choice or parental "concern") and so watch a lot of TV.

They wouldn't dare try to make the claim in the other direction, since it would be so easy for them to compare with kids that had the same condition but sat inside reading or doing other things instead of watching TV.

If TV caused all these problems, I'd be a mess. I spent much of my adolescence and early adulthood in my dad's TV shop. We had several to many TVs running constantly in the showroom, and several "cooking" (running to see if the repair worked) on the workbench. We had 4 TVs in the house, one of them always on, and I had one of the first car cigarette lighter powered portable, so I could watch TV even when I went out. If these awful TV-rays that cause all these problems really exist, I should be dead a couple times already. But there's nothing wrong with me that can be attributed to TV. Well, except for some visual oddities: "Everybody's made out of little thin lines. Sometimes their fingers are blue. Mine are too." -- Mike Nesmith, "Tonight", from Elephant Parts

And another.

[Jane Q. Public]

Do you guys really want to keep doing this? You aren't proving anything.

Don't buy some of it.

[Secret Rabbit]

I don't think that researchers understand the difference between causation and correlation.

I'll buy that watching a lot of tv can lead to someone being overweight. After all, how many of use use a treadmill while watching our "stories." I'll buy that not exercising can have other outcomes such as (stretching it) asthma. Not working those lunges may indeed lead to problems for kids. But, this is hardly a conclusive study. Where's all the testing on the tissues themselves. Where ruling out other factors such as diet, air quality, etc? I know we got some of that tissue around that the lab guys can do tests on and while following people around for over a decade, it's hard to believe that they couldn't have noticed living conditions.

But, obesity, diabetes, smoking and (especially) promiscuity?!?!? Bullshit. One must be susceptible to get diabetes and the TV cannot make one not exercise and smoke. And promiscuity?!?! PROMISCUITY?!?!? Perhaps these guys should get out of the lab and see just how many parents are NOT parenting there kids.

Jesus christ. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Re:Don't buy some of it.

[bigmouth_strikes]

> I don't think that researchers understand the difference between causation and correlation.

Why is that ? Have you ever undertaken studies to become a researcher, perhaps at PhD or post-doc levels ? If you did and still believe this, then you should ask for your money back. Most such programs involve quite extensive theory behind how to calculate statistical association and correlation. Do you actually know anything on how this study was performed and how its findings was analyzed ?

Perhaps you do, but the tone of your comment leads me to think that you have no idea and just think the summary sounded too far-fetching for your liking.

Re:Don't buy some of it.

[internerdj]

After all, how many of use use a treadmill while watching our "stories." My wife and I have recently started doing this. It makes exercise much more interesting(being an activity I've never had much interest in on its own). I've worked up to burning about 450 calories 5 days a week.

The promiscuity thing was an earlier study that linked teenage dramas with lots of discussion of sex and promiscuity to surprise: promiscuity.

Re:Don't buy some of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you actually know anything on how this study was performed and how its findings was analyzed ?

No, because as far as I can tell, there WAS no study! Neither article linked in the summary has any link to the study itself, and I'm not going to trust the media to correctly interpret scientific studies- they've proven far too many times that they are capable of seriously screwing it up.

That's not to say people should be so quick to judge the researchers. Perhaps they should be judging the so-called journalists instead, since they're the only ones who we are actually listening to...

Re:Don't buy some of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finding a correlation should never be treated as a result or used by itself to establish a cause/effect relationship. Finding a correlation simply means that you need to dig deeper. The two correlated data may have a similar root cause, or may be unrelated. You can't really tell without further data or experimentation.

Re:Don't buy some of it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you RTFA? It says in the article that they were using TV watching as a proxy measure of sedentary behaviour, so the implication is that sedentary behaviour increases the chance of getting asthma.

As to the other things linked to TV watching, they were only mentioned in the summary, not mentioned in the article at all.

I'm sure the researchers understand that correlation does not equal causation, but perhaps the Slashdot editors and submitter do not.

If you're going to question something, how about the claim that consoles were not in widespread use in the mid-nineties (thus being ignored as a measure of sedentary behaviour), I must have imagined that SNES I had, the Megadrive (Genesis for non-UK people) my brother had and the GameBoys we both had and I'm sure my friends at school had games consoles as-well.

Brainless research

[4D6963]

OK no seriously now WTF. There's not a day without a health news story talking about some weird correlation between two factors that are obviously not directly related. What's a researcher these days, someone who gathers a whole bunch of data, looks for all the statistical correlation they can find and publish a paper as soon as they find "something", without using an ounce of critical thinking? It surely is how it sounds like.

"So we took a whole bunch of people, alright, we asked them a whole bunch of random questions about their weight, their diet, their asthma, their TV watching habits, then we cross plotted them, let the computer program give us a correlation index and the one with the strongest correlation was asthma vs TV so we wrote a paper about it. As to the whyness of this correlation, meh, we don't really know, nor did we bother to establish a few hypothesises like "oh maybe it's due to socio-economic conditions i.e. poor people watch more TV and live in houses with asbestos hey let's try and find out", nah, we just care about writing a paper and making it buzz for all it's worth cause it's gonna look good on our CVs and you know it's going to work because people love senseless sensationalist drivel like "new research shows that learning to play the violin will make you live 6 years longer!" or "can eating pineapple make you gain IQ points?"."

Re:Brainless research

[bigmouth_strikes]

Do you have any clue what's involved in doing scientific research, especially involving a large study such as the one in question (ALSPAC), involving 14000 children and their parents ? It sounds like you are questioning the scientific methods used in the study, which so far has resulted in over 300 peer-review academic papers, so it would be interesting to know what you base this on.

Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to something that's not obvious to you ?

I'm not saying that you're out of your depth here, but I'll wager that you are.

Re:Brainless research

[4D6963]

Maybe you missed my point, my point is that it's like all these guys churn out is correlations. That's what you see in the news, correlations, "hey general public, we found a correlation, do whatever the fuck you want with it". It's not about the research so much as the results, mostly the ones we the general public are supposed to hear about.

Re:Brainless research

[bigmouth_strikes]

Perhaps I am, but I believe that you're reading too much into the public release media material, which is a very watered-down version of the findings of the actual study.

Re:Brainless research

[smellsofbikes]

>some weird correlation between two factors that are obviously not directly related. What's a researcher these days, someone who gathers a whole bunch of data, looks for all the statistical correlation they can find and publish a paper as soon as they find "something"

But here's the thing: they did find "something", that is statistically significant. That means there *is* a direct relationship. That's the whole point of statistics. They're establishing that there's something going on, and then they go looking for what. The relationship may be direct (causation) or symptomatic of something else (correlation) but they are, indeed, showing that there *is* a relationship.
There are a lot of books out there that discuss precisely this: what happens if you just go digging through data randomly and find statistically significant correlations, and then try and figure out why. "Freakonomics" discusses how there's a direct linear relationship between a mother's educational level and how she alters the spelling of her children's names. That's a *weird* correlation, but it is demonstrable. A more famous example -- from 1920, so it's not like weird correlation is a modern phenomenon -- is George Taylor's hemline index where he showed that the length of skirt hemlines was strongly correlated with the economy. And there are explanations for why that was/is happening.
Sometimes weird things are interrelated. When people find them, it's a good place to go looking for underlying mechanisms. You can do good theoretical science by formulating a hypothesis and then testing it, but you can also do good empirical science by finding demonstrably interrelated systems and then figuring out how they are interrelated.

Re:Brainless research

[4D6963]

But here's the thing: they did find "something", that is statistically significant. That means there *is* a direct relationship.

FAIL! It's not because there's a correlation that there's a direct relationship. Unless by direct relationship you mean A and B are linked by A<-C<-D->E->B, which I'd rather call "indirect". Let's say it goes like this : poor people are poor -> therefore their kids have a shitty education -> therefore they hardly know how to read or do anything creative -> therefore they spend their time watching TV. In parallel, they're poor -> therefore they live in shitty houses -> therefore they catch colds and infections because they have a poor insulation or whatever -> therefore they catch asthma (let's admit it makes sense).

Considered all of that, how the fuck does that help to know that watching TV is correlated to asthma? Maybe it can be somewhere to start off for a researcher, but it can't be the fucking conclusion of their research, if you'll admit my hypothetical scenario, they should look for the true direct reasons for asthma, which would be the conditions of living of a certain class of people (to which something could actually be done to remedy to that asthma problem, i.e. the President decides to fix the insulation of every house in the fucking country) and not content themselves with some vague bullshit that the general public that this press release is meant to be read by would interpret as "so turning the TV will keep my kids more safe from asthma?!".

Re:Brainless research

[smellsofbikes]

As the old sayings goes -- or should -- "correlation is not causation, but it's a good place to start looking."

Pointing out that AE->B is useful because it shows other people where to look. It increases the amount of information. If we don't know that, we don't know where to look, but if we DO know that, we have a narrower area to investigate. That's why it's useful.
Sure, the public will misinterpret this. But the public always misinterprets science, so that's not really much loss. If you're arguing that we shouldn't do research because it'll mislead the public, we're screwed.
Look at this as basic research, similar to what particle physicists are doing: bashing things together to see what happens, and then letting someone else try and stitch that into a theoretical framework. That's why I was on about empirical science as opposed to theoretical science: it's valid to just do a zillion experiments, or even just observations, with no hypothesis and then publish the results, because someone else can use that data to help form a hypothesis. We didn't get the equation for gravity from theory, we got it from doing gobs of experiments on how fast things fell.

Re:Brainless research

[4D6963]

Yeah, thanks very fucking much for rehashing my point that it's a good start for a researcher but no good to the public.

And don't fucking blame it on the public for failing at doing the job the researchers should have done before opening their mouths. They publish a half done job, period. That's as if you watched CSI and the investigation stopped at "forensics just confirmed that the weapon found in a trashcan 200 years from the crime scene was the crime weapon".

Re:Brainless research

[AK Marc]

What's a researcher these days, someone who gathers a whole bunch of data, looks for all the statistical correlation they can find and publish a paper as soon as they find "something", without using an ounce of critical thinking? It surely is how it sounds like.

That's how it's supposed to work. There are a number of correlations that were found to be causes that started out just as you say. Research that is statistically valid and unbiased should be published. If there's a correlation but not causation, then something that TV correlates with *must* be the cause. Something has to cause it, and we don't know. Finding all the correlations we can will help find the cause. This is useful. It's not saying that turning off the TV and having them read instead will cure it. It's saying that there is a direct correlation between TV and asthma. Assuming correct methodology, this should be repeatable. If you think it isn't causative and you correct for things like diet, then when you find it doesn't correlate any more, the last thing you excluded should be a tighter correlation than the original. Repeat until you have a correlation that can't be separated. Then that would likely be the cause.

Remember, though correlation does not prove causation, causes are correlated with the results, so something that correlates could easily be the cause (not that I'm saying it is in this case, but correlation *is* causation sometimes).

Re:Brainless research

[ChrisA90278]

Not "Brainless research" but "brainless reporting of research".

Or maybe brainless readers. Yes the problem is with people who get there science education by reading web Blogs and CNN headlines. The people who write forthose outlets are really trying to sell ad space. Don't blame the researchers because to ideot blogger jumped on the story and bend it around to snag a few more click-thoughs on his web site ads.

Re:Brainless research

[himi]

Considered all of that, how the fuck does that help to know that watching TV is correlated to asthma?

Maybe, if you'd thought to read a little further, you'd have noticed that the research uses TV viewing as a /proxy/ for sedentary behaviour? And also, if you'd read a little further, you'd have noticed that the research proposed a number of mechanisms to explain why sedentary behaviour might result in increased risk of asthma?

Maybe, just maybe, you might want to /learn something/ before you start spouting bullshit.

himi

Re:Brainless research

[sean_ex_machina]

The relative risk was 1.8. They may have put a lot of time and money into this study, but the result they found is almost meaningless.

THIS is why correlation!=causation

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason for a link given, so it IS only assuming that the correlation means there IS a causation, if only they could think of one.

However, that meme is used a lot where there IS a causation possiblity and the correlation existing shows that there is a likelihood the causation is correct. If there is a causation possiblity but NO correlation, then the causation is wrong or missing something much more important.

But that latter case is NOT a reason to parrot out "correlation!=causation". This would be "causation gives correlation".

Hmmmmm.....

[IHC Navistar]

" The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to TV viewing."

Ok..... obesity, diabetes, and smoking I can definitely find true. Promiscuity, sort of, but only in the sense that it leads to a lack of knowledge about reality and people learning social norms through Big Media and Hollywood.

Asthma, on the other hand, would require a whole hell of a lot more evidence, study, and explaination than simply correlation.

Re:Hmmmmm.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would asthma be less obvious than diabetes ?

Or Does Over-Use of Anti-Biotics Cause Asthma?

[Anonymous Coward]

And which parents are going to take their kids to the doctor every time they get a cold?

That would be the same overly-protective, doting parents that let their kids sit in the house and watch TV all day.

So, does watching TV cause Asthma, as the article suggests, or are extensive TV-watching and Asthma both the result of another factor?

I declare the single largest cause of asthma...

[OneSmartFellow]

...to be poor parenting.

Get your lazy kid out of the freaking house, and make him/her run around and exercise those lungs. Force them to draw deep breaths, repeatedly. Make the lungs work and grow strong. Of course if you sit like a freaking lump, your lungs are weak. You ass-hats !

Re:I declare the single largest cause of asthma...

[OhPlz]

I bet playing outside would show a correlation with skin cancer, broken bones, lacerations, and abduction. Oh no. Better bring them all back inside right away! Oops.. asthma, obesity, smoking, and promiscuity. Quick kids, get on the porch. No one has studied the porch! Run kids! Run for your lives!

Re:I declare the single largest cause of asthma...

[NoobixCube]

I think the single largest cause of asthma is poor doctoring. Misdiagnosis. Yes, it does exist. Yes, there are plenty of legitimate sufferers. For a while though, like ADHD is today, Asthma was the cool new diagnosis bandwagon, and everyone had to get on it. I was misdiagnosed when I was about 6, and the inhalers actually perpetuated the symptoms I'd already displayed (probably a cold at the time). I eventually threw them away when I was nine, and within a week I could suddenly walk to school without feeling like I was drinking crushed glass. Since getting rid of my inhalers, my fitness has dramatically increased (though it seemed to plateau when I discovered Slashdot).

If you actually have asthma, I obviously mean no offence, but if you were diagnosed back when it was all the rage, I'd be at least questioning that diagnosis. No doctor is infallible, and a second opinion is worthwhile for any major diagnosis.

You're close to the answer ...

[tomhudson]

They can't fill every commercial break with a cigarette.

Kids sitting in front of the TV arent outside playing - so they're exposed to higher concentrations of second-hand smoke for longer periods of time.

It's so obvious that maybe I should apply for a grant to show how the sun is in the sky only during daylight hours.

Re:You're close to the answer ...

[MrNaz]

It's so obvious that maybe I should apply for a grant to show how the sun is in the sky only during daylight hours.

I represent a consortium of investors who are interested in your proposed research. Please can you give us more information, such as how soon your research would yield commercialisable results.

We would also be interested in patenting the outcomes of your research, so please can you tell us how long it would take to fully write up a patent application for a method of comprehensively determining the presence or absence of the Sun during certain times of the solar cycle.

We look forward to funding your novel research.

Re:You're close to the answer ...

[tomhudson]

Well, the first thing to patent will be the method and device for tracking the sun. It's round, with a photo-receptive surface - which we can trademark as the "eye-ball", and fits in a skull-shaped object, which we can call an "eye-pod".

Or for simplicity, an "iBall" and an "iPod".

Re:You're close to the answer ...

[The Spoonman]

Prove it. Oh, wait, you can't, you don't have data to back up your claim. Since the article doesn't mention the smoking habits of the parents, it's possible your claim has been debunked.

Not saying you don't make a plausible argument, but that science sometimes needs to investigate the "obvious" to be sure the "obvious" is right.

And, BTW, the Sun isn't in the sky only during daylight hours. It's always in the sky, it's only visible by those experiencing daylight hours. Science tackled that one a long time ago to disprove the theory that the Sun went underground to rest or hide or one of the myriad other tasks ancient "obvious" myths claimed. :)

Asthma is not curable

[messner_007]

Except for professional and some forms of allergic asthma, there is no cure for asthma yet. We can only make it less active. We can achieve this with medications, with breathing training and also by other means.

The most important part: having asthma is not he same as having less active asthma. This study is talking about getting asthma, not about having asthma properly treated.

So the question remains the same and is still unanswered by this stupid study: Does enough early live exercise prevents people from getting asthma ? ... or is this study only watching a third factor, that influences a degree of child's exercise and asthma induction simultaneously ?

We don't know that, I only hope my taxpayers money is not spent on this nonsense ... (maybe they got a brain damaged sponsor or something).

Re:Asthma is not curable

[himi]

So the question remains the same and is still unanswered by this stupid study: Does enough early live exercise prevents people from getting asthma ? ... or is this study only watching a third factor, that influences a degree of child's exercise and asthma induction simultaneously ?

What makes you call this a stupid study? Did you actually read the article?

The 'stupid study' is the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/. There's nothing stupid about it - this is exactly the kind of study that's /essential/ to help us understand the details of how living affects us. This particular result is a tiny, trivial part of the overall study.

Whine about correlation versus causation all you want - these kinds of studies and the correlations they discover are /vital/ to identifying cause and effect in complex systems like growing kids.

himi

Re:Asthma is not curable

[messner_007]

OK, I agree totally with you, that this study wasn't powered enough to answer a question about causal relationship between Asthma and watching TV. I have also first thought ... OK, this newsflash comes from yellow magazines ... but it doesn't !

They do actually comment it on their web site: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/documents/tv-asthma-risk.pdf

And this link is the first link on the front page of the study. They are just not serious and this is not something so uncommon in academic circles these days ... They just push such "news" . Plain ugly. Maybe because the other data they mined with taxpayers money was so less interesting, they didn't bother to talk about it. They add, that sun is good for mum and the baby and that FTO is linked to increased appetite ... and the input data was collected form mother reported survey ...

Why do they still throw money on such studies with total lack of scientific imagination ?

THe cause: YES, WE CAN !!

And they do it. They get a big budget from the country and then they do the "research". But the bill has come and also UK will have to find a way to think, where will they pounds be spend. They didn't bother till now ... and now they CAN'T any more ...

I haven't read TFA but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe asthma caused the sedentary lifestyle? If you are unable to run and ride like your friends and exercise is a chore because you can't breathe, a logical outcome is sitting more. Back in the days without TV you just sat around more outside, now kits sit inside watching TV.

Outdated, primitive, and WRONG.

[Hurricane78]

Sorry, but I got living proof of the cause of Asthma being bad food.

A friend of mine had a bad Asthma every summer. He nearly suffocated without his inhalator.
He found a book of some guy claiming that in decades of clinical experience, said that bad food was the reason.
He gave it a try, and stopped eating anything denatured. No heated protein. No processed food. Most of all, no sugar / starch / white flour.
And what do you know... That summer he did use that inhalator only one singe time. Next summer he had forgotten that he had asthma, and only realized it, after having eaten too much fast-food on a wild party-weekend in late summer.

The reason this is not public knowledge, is that you have to test your assumptions, before they get published. Which is nearly impossible for diseases that grow as slow or slower than asthma. You would have to make trials that last for years. Normally, nobody does that.
Luckily, that doctor (author of the book) were the chief physician of a clinic for decades, and had thousands of patients, many of them also for decades. So he could try these things out. in his eyes, most of the so-called age-related diseases come from this bad food.

(By the way: The reason he started to get back a bit of asthma after that fast-food weekend, was that you can't fix all the trash you've eaten in decades, by eating good for only one and a half year.)

Oh, and his name was Dr. med. M.O. Bruker. (I don't know if he published anything in another language than German.)

Re:Outdated, primitive, and WRONG.

[Bryan Ischo]

So you can't study Asthma because it "grows slow", but you can cure it virtually overnight by adopting a politically correct diet?

Let me know when you've tested your theory on hundreds or thousands of test subjects in controlled conditions. I'm not saying your second hand experience isn't interesting, but I'd believe the scientists over random friend-of-a-friend stories any day ...

obligatory xkcd quote

[MoZ-RedShirt]

http://www.xkcd.com/552/

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I'm 38, I have Asthma and you know what we never had a TV until I was 8 years old! Even then we went out to the country almost every weekend camping and the like, usually to place miles away from cities and towns! So put that in your stats and smoke 'em!

Damn Brits

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep posting these failures of hack science. It entertains me greatly. If you've been paying attention, you shouldn't believe a single statistic you hear.

Talk about the wrong conclusion in the summary...

[Abcd1234]

"The results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity, diabetes, smoking, and promiscuity, tied to TV viewing.""

No, the results add asthma to a catalog of undesirable outcomes, including obesity and diabetes, tied to a sedentary lifestyle.

Honestly, was this article summary written by this guy?

Re:Just un(RE)productive

[InsertCleverUsername]

What's the point of promiscuity if it doesn't make babies? It might be entertaining for its participants, well, one of them anyway, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful. It's just self indulgence.

Well... I'm certainly glad I'm not your significant other. ;)

What other completely enjoyable activities are causing you horrible self-loathing?

Vitamin D deficiency, anyone?

[SlowGenius]

The "hygiene hypothesis" is one hypothesis to explain the prevalence of asthma among kids who stay indoors a lot. But that hypothesis doesn't explain the particularly high prevalence of asthma among black inner city kids--they don't live in particularly clean/fastidious environments. Turns out there's another hypothesis that's at least as plausible: Vitamin D deficiency.

Being indoors a lot equates to a lack of adequate sun exposure, which causes Vitamin D deficiency, which is now epidemic. (And having dark skin, which is great for protection against melanoma and sunburn, turns out to be not so good when it comes to producing Vitamin D--particularly in northern latitudes.) Vitamin D deficiency has now been linked to tons of health problems--not just osteoporosis, but also many types of cancers, as well as depression, diabetes (both types), heart disease, autism, multiple sclerosis, and (among many other conditions--you guessed it) asthma.

I'd recommend people check out www.vitamindcouncil.org for more info about Vitamin D in general. As to the specific links to asthma, well, I'd provide some links, but I'm guessing anybody who cares to look for more evidence can use Google as well as I can. :^)

The most likely reason is..

[jpratt3rd]

The more likely connection between asthma and hours of presence in front of a TV is, the toxicity and fumes from the TV. Fire retardant chemicals and conformal coatings on the circuit boards and other electronic components are all releasing chemical, toxic fumes into the air, albeit small, especially once a TV gets heated up from being on. In addition, if it is an older CRT tube-type of TV involved, there are fair amounts of ozone produced by the high voltage circuitry. All of these things are chemical outgassings, which are exactly the known triggers for people that already have asthma and other lung ailments.

Honestly

[Khaloroma]

Am I the only person who doesn't see any purpose whatsoever to have kids waste time watching garbage on TV when there are only a handful of shows that are worth watching?

It's eating sugar and refined carbs, not TV!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the TV, its the dam sugar that kids are eating while watching the TV. Sugars/Carbs = Candida overgrowth, which equals all sorts of problems, one being asthma.

Gangbangers don't get asthma

[ClosedSource]

because they're outside and living active lives.

Seriously, researchers love to come up with theories that blame the patient or their parents for the illness. A lot easier than developing a vaccine and it satisfies their protestant work-ethic bias too.

Correlationisnotcausation Tags Must Die

[dcollins]

Look, read the summary. (a) No one claimed they had found causative factors. They are very careful to state that they found a correlative link. What were they supposed to do, not publish the findings because it's only correlation? (b) This is not a situation where it will not ever be feasible to do a study showing actual causation. You simply can't do a designed experiment where you take a control and experimental group of babies, lock them in two differently designed households for 5 years, and then see which group develops asthma more frequently.

Any way you look at it, "correlationisnotcausation" is not a relevant response to any part of this article. This is how research is done, and these are what the results are like. The unthinking "correlationisnotcausation" comments are just a microscopic step removed from people yelling "evolution is just a theory, it's never been proven!", any time that comes up.

Whatever

[tthomas48]

Let's remember correlation is not necessarily causation. You don't get some sort of free pass to ignore all correlations.

Standard Slashdot reaction - "Ah, it's a correlation! Scientific proof it's completely unrelated thanks to the 'correlation is not causation' rule"

I find this very easy to believe. I have pretty bad allergies and in recent years I've started running a few miles a day. If I run my allergies stay mostly under control, if I skip for a few days I often end up with a sinus infection. So even though pretty much all the allergens I'm allergic to are outside (this has been proven with a skin test), I stay healthier if I go outside every day.

They should take these statistics and run some tests to see if the asthma of these kids improves if they cut their TV by an hour, or completely out.

Well duh

[Torodung]

If you started wheezing every time you ran around the playlot with your friends, what would you sit around doing all day?

This is not "correlationisnotcausation," this is "thankyoucaptainobvious."

--
Toro

Other Undesirable Outcomes

[chasisaac]

Stupidity. -- Which happens to be America's most expensive national resource.

Sensationalist Nonsense

[Dash Hash]

Honestly, this sounds suspect, at best. I can think of numerous reasons why asthma would appear more common in people who watched TV more, including one much more likely "death spiral":

A person who will have asthma likely has it to lesser degrees when they are younger. This makes it more difficult to go out and do activities that would require the body to breath harder.

In turn, this causes said people to find other tasks to occupy their time, of which TV is a very easy solution.

Of course, the more TV you watch, and the less physical activity you have, the worst shape your body will be in. If you are not physically capable of doing active activities (taking asthma out of the equation for the moment) then you are less likely to do said activities.

Again, you then seek other ways to occupy your time, and the cycle repeats.

I could just as easily say that TV is liked with lower IQ (ignoring the fantasy that IQ is) and show a very strong link with it. However, watching TV does not lower a person's intelligence, it just makes them less likely to increase it. Of course, accessibility to learning materials is far more important, so any would-be jokers who want to comment about this being the reason Africa is the leading scientific nation need not respond.

Also, preemptive "Why so serious?"

Re:Sensationalist Nonsense

[Jonah Bomber]

Not only will TV not increase your kid's IQ, it will also lower it.

Other studies have different ideas

[Daemonic]

There were headlines last year along the lines of "caesarean birth increases chance of asthma by 80%".

The science behind the headlines is here: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/12December/Pages/Caesereansandasthma.aspx

This research too is potentially flawed, but it suggests there are definitely factors other than TV to blame.

I guess my family is an anomoly then

[Golddess]

Among myself and my two younger brothers, I'm the stereotypical computer geek, while they can both be classified as jocks. The only time I'm not sitting at a computer, it's usually because I'm walking to/from my car to drive to work/home. Yet despite this sedentary lifestyle, I have no known health concerns, while both my brothers have bottles upon bottles of pills and other medications for various things, asthma among them.

Correlations aren't meaningless.

[Funk_dat69]

Correlations aren't meaningless.

A positive correlation exists when factor X increases/decreases and the same time as factor Y, with a negative correlation being the opposite.

Correlations do not prove causation, and should not be misinterpreted as that, but a truly defined correlation is almost as good in some cases.

Correlations can be misrepresented, however, which is why so many people on here deride research with correlations as outcomes, which is unfortunate.

TV is to Asthma as Pirates are to Global Warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the number of kids with asthma has been going up with the rise in television from the 1960s. Well, obviously more TVs means more kids with asthma.

You know, the overall temperature of the Earth has gone up substantially as the number of pirates on the high seas has gone down. Therefore the solution to global warming must be: pirates.

In an amazing coincidence . . . .

[bogidu]

the survival rate of children through age 11 has ALSO increased dramatically since the 60's. I guess the rest of the severe asthmatics just aren't dying off like they used to either. I suppose that means that medical science has improved a bit in the last 50 years?

Watching TV and sedentary behavior confusion?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not clear exactly how sedentary behaviors like television watching are tied to asthma," -

Wouldn't it be entirely linked to the fact when we watch TV we sit in our chairs, sofas, and rarely move with exception to bathroom/munchie breaks. So with that in mind isn't it just that the lack of any exposure to outside elements, pollen, or whatever else that dwells in the big blue room? On the same token the same could be applied to the correlation between asthma and obesity if TV is the linking factor because it's not like we don't have an epidemic of that popping up. With that in mind by being inside we're not getting our cardiovascular workout required to increase circulation requiring less oxygen in our blood meaning we can breath shallower to just get by while watching TV.

The reson is easy

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason is easy... More pollution of the environment and more chemicals on the food...That's all the explanation...

Correlation != Causation

[Anonymous Coward]

Correlation != Causation

CARB exemptions suck

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish they found a different method that this CARB exemption system. It penalizes DIY-ers (which many auto hobbists are) and rare or out of production cars for which aftermarket manufacturers have lost interest. And no, new (2009) rules do not allow "high-flow" catalytic converters any more. They are tightening it down even more to the point where it's no more illegal to run a straight pipe than it is to have a high-flow cat. It seems they are forcing you to keep buying new cars. I'm actually toying with the idea to say F it and buy a pre-1970 smog machine that at least I can do whatever I want with it.

Re:CARB exemptions suck

[drinkypoo]

I just wish they found a different method that this CARB exemption system.

I do too, but I think it's clear that the alternative is to do randomized sniff testing like they occasionally do in southern california - but all over the state.

And no, new (2009) rules do not allow "high-flow" catalytic converters any more.

No, that is not true. You need a cat with a EO Number. It has LONG been illegal for a shop to install a cat in a car whose cat is not damaged in any case (although you can damage it yourself easily enough.) The difference for '09 vehicles is that high-flow cats have to be certified for particular vehicles, which is going to reduce availability.

I think a lot of people are going to go out of state for this kind of work... It's only going to hurt CA economically.

I'm actually toying with the idea to say F it and buy a pre-1970 smog machine that at least I can do whatever I want with it.

Any Diesels sold before the changeover to catalysts and particulate filters are also unsmogged vehicles. You can pick up a Mercedes Diesel (up to the nineties) and swap anything you like without inspections. Of course, it's still ostensibly subject to spot inspections. Personally that's the engine I want in my MBZ (1982 300SD.)

Compounding Personal Problems

[RealErmine]

Are there really a lot of obese, diabetic, asthmatics who are inordinately promiscuous and champion chain smokers?

This sounds like an HBO drama in the making.

There is a chicken and egg problem in this study.

[misterjava66]

There is a 'chicken and egg' problem in an epidemiological study like this.

A study such as this CAN find an association between TV watching AND Asthma.
But it can't find cause. For all we know, children with Asthma/pre-Asthma
avoid outdoors and thus, the Asthma causes the TV watching, not the other
way around. For all we know, they have a common still unknown cause. What
we CANNOT say from a study constructed this way is CAUSE. Only association.
With that said, the matter does warrent further study, but how?