Is this flaky reporting of science, or flaky science?

ToneControl

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-31849823

I would guess that offshore workers today are on average older than 30 years ago when it was a new industry

Most people get less fit as they get older

the report does not mention ages at all

not as obvious (to me) as this one though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26068363

"The paper found no increased leukaemia risk for those living near power lines from the 1980s onwards - but a higher risk did exist in the 1960s and 70s.  The researchers said the findings were "reassuring" but work was being done to understand the historical patterns."

My thought was that in the 70s, every kid played outdoors, every day. Some friends would go home from school, change and then were actually not allowed back in their house until 6pm. After computer consoles and other technologies took hold in the 80s, far fewer kids played outdoors, it seems to me.  

I emailed the researcher, and they'd not considered changed patterns in outdoor activity

Drew_TNBD

You want accuracy from the BBC? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bogwhoppit

Drew_fx said:

You want accuracy from the BBC? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

...add to that impartiality, and value for money.

imalone

ToneControl said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-31849823

I would guess that offshore workers today are on average older than 30 years ago when it was a new industry

Most people get less fit as they get older

the report does not mention ages at all

"Well-equipped gyms found on most platforms were thought to have played a big part in the weight increase.
Another factor was said to be the increased ethnic diversity of the workforce.
Workers are now also taller, by about 3.5cm on average."
They're looking at the changes in the offshore workforce, with a view to, "help inform the future design of offshore installations and safety kit." Actually, their suggestion is that changing makeup of the workforce, plus more takeup of gyms onboard has led to workers being bigger seems quite reasonable. It's not some conclusion about the population getting less fit, it's targeted research for a definite purpose. The underlying causes may be something to look into (I'm not sure the age profile of workers will have changed much actually, it's dangerous work that pays well and involves being away from home for long periods of time, traditionally attracts younger people), but what they've measured is about information they need when designing and fitting out platforms. This is all in the article. Why do you think it's flaky?

ToneControl said:

not as obvious (to me) as this one though:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26068363

"The paper found no increased leukaemia risk for those living near power lines from the 1980s onwards - but a higher risk did exist in the 1960s and 70s.  The researchers said the findings were "reassuring" but work was being done to understand the historical patterns."

My thought was that in the 70s, every kid played outdoors, every day. Some friends would go home from school, change and then were actually not allowed back in their house until 6pm. After computer consoles and other technologies took hold in the 80s, far fewer kids played outdoors, it seems to me.  

I emailed the researcher, and they'd not considered changed patterns in outdoor activity

It's a good idea. It may not be that the effect in the 70s is significant, do enough comparisons at a certain statistical threshold and some will show up as significant, which is why it needs more investigation. Are you suggesting playing outdoors may have involved more exposure to a harmful effect from power lines? High voltage stuff (especially poorly maintained) does give off UV, though you'd have thought skin cancer rather than leukaemia if that was a causative mechanism.

ToneControl

I'm saying that whenever some results appear in the news there's never enough info to even address the first questions that pop up. It's very common for surveys to miss obvious causal factors, few journalists seem equipped to understand stats.

Therefore, you can't usually tell if the science was flaky, or just the reporting

I'd say  large number of these type of reports are rendered meaningless without the background info

ICBM

Almost by definition of the career path to end up there, most journalists don't understand science and statistics properly. (Or engineering, for that matter.)

imalone

ToneControl said:

I'm saying that whenever some results appear in the news there's never enough info to even address the first questions that pop up. It's very common for surveys to miss obvious causal factors, few journalists seem equipped to understand stats.

Therefore, you can't usually tell if the science was flaky, or just the reporting

I'd say  large number of these type of reports are rendered meaningless without the background info

BBC science reporting is often not good, and one of my main issues with it is they almost never link the original research.
However I think the offshore workers thing is not bad, even the related stories help put it in context, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-29502334 which talks about larger workers not being able to travel on all helicopters, there are a cluster of stories in the NE Scotland section about related issues and it's of interest to lots of people in Aberdeen.
The leukaemia one also, it gives the size of the study and some of the methodology. Your question about outdoor play is a good one, but it's a hypothesis that's yet to be tested. I'd rather science reporters did not speculate, that tends to be when they get into problems about drawing bad conclusions from a study. For example, if they started talking about the platform workers study providing evidence people were becoming overweight, that would be simply making things up.
There is a fuzzy area between pointing out shortcomings and speculation though, and we do need more reporters who can do the former.

ToneControl

imalone said:

ToneControl said:

I'm saying that whenever some results appear in the news there's never enough info to even address the first questions that pop up. It's very common for surveys to miss obvious causal factors, few journalists seem equipped to understand stats.

Therefore, you can't usually tell if the science was flaky, or just the reporting

I'd say  large number of these type of reports are rendered meaningless without the background info

BBC science reporting is often not good, and one of my main issues with it is they almost never link the original research.
However I think the offshore workers thing is not bad, even the related stories help put it in context, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-29502334 which talks about larger workers not being able to travel on all helicopters, there are a cluster of stories in the NE Scotland section about related issues and it's of interest to lots of people in Aberdeen.
The leukaemia one also, it gives the size of the study and some of the methodology. Your question about outdoor play is a good one, but it's a hypothesis that's yet to be tested. I'd rather science reporters did not speculate, that tends to be when they get into problems about drawing bad conclusions from a study. For example, if they started talking about the platform workers study providing evidence people were becoming overweight, that would be simply making things up.
There is a fuzzy area between pointing out shortcomings and speculation though, and we do need more reporters who can do the former.

I agree

My gripe is that I can't tell whether the report is incomplete, or whether the research carried out was incomplete

I've seen enough flaky research in Unis to know that either is possible