Reporting or research lacking on aircraft noise
A Time Magazine report on the health effects of jet aircraft noise made no mention of confounding variables, such as pollution and socio-economic status. If the study did control for these factors, the story should have mentioned them. If it didn't, the results should be regarded with deep skepticism.
-----
A story in Time Magazine by Tristana Moore reports that German researchers have discovered dramatic links between jet airplane noise and serious adverse health effects in people. For example, according to the story, men exposed to jet noise have a 69 percent greater risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular disease, and women have a 93 percent higher risk. Women exposed to jet noise of about 60 decibels during the day are 172 percent more likely to suffer stroke.
These are important results, if real. But there is no mention in the article of any of the many confounding variables that could be driving these risks instead of jet noise. To get any sense as to the likelihood that these results are valid, readers need to know if the right statistical procedures were followed to control for these factors. For example, the fact that jet airplanes are flying low overhead almost certainly means there are going to be elevated rates of jet-related air pollution. Were these measured? Another factor is socio-economic status (and all that comes with that). Housing beneath jet approaches is going to be less expensive. Poor people often suffer from health conditions at higher rates than wealthier people, for many reasons.
If the research controlled for these variables, Moore should have told us about it, because it is a vital component of how credible the study is. If the research didn't, then not only is it unpublished (which Moore did report) but it is probably not publishable, and not worth space in Time Magazine.
