Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

blimpyway t1_ixr5ro9 wrote

Seriously? Couldn't be the case the outdoor night lights only shine the road towards the candy shop?

12

Moont1de t1_ixr624g wrote

I don't think they try to draw causal nexus in this study (which is fine, it's not in the scope of a study like this to explain everything).

There are many potentially sound hypotheses one could make e.g. people who live near lots of artificial lights also likely live in urban centers and might work longer and thus have less time to exercise or eat healthy.

Also could be poorer, etc.

21

giuliomagnifico OP t1_ixr6mv2 wrote

Yes, this study doesn’t say that the light is the cause but that “where there’s is more artificial light there’s more diabetes”, not that the light is the cause of the diabetes. There could be lots of connected causes as you said.

10

Dont____Panic t1_ixvbls6 wrote

I haven’t read it, but is it plausible form the data and controls that outdoor lights = denser city -> city lifestyle (nightlife, processed foods, stress/noise, etc) -> diabetes

If so, it seems less likely to me that this is some actual light impact and far more likely to be just a marker of lifestyle.

Edit: it said one of the controls was adjusting for “urban/rural area“. I have no idea what that means, but that is at least part of above. I’m unsure how a binary urban/rural is measurable. In any rural environment one that is more lit is going to be more densely populated. I think the same is probably true for urban areas.

Seems like maybe a control for population density might be more useful.

1