Stupid Study Blames Deafness on iPods

[Vincent Ferrari]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://householdhacker.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=317:millions-of-songs-long-battery-life-no-hearing-left-for-ipod-owners&catid=46:tech-news&Itemid=53' target='_blank'>http://householdhacker.com/index.ph...-news&Itemid=53</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"The audiologist suggests that the reason so many people listen to their ipod's with the volume turned up beyond what is safe is because they believe that the mp3 player manufacturers would not let their devices have volume settings beyond what is safe to listen to. Others may think that any setting other than maximum volume is safe to listen to for any amount of time. In the United States and other countries lawsuits have been filed against Apple because of hearing loss associated with use of iPods."</em></p><p><em><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1235482360.usr18053.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></em></p><p>It must be that time of the year again. &nbsp;The time when all the quack doctors trying to make a name for themselves jump out of the woodwork and proclaim that young people are losing their hearing faster and faster because of MP3 players. &nbsp;If you remember, there was also a study a few years ago that blamed hearing loss on the range of sound reproducible in an MP3 file. &nbsp;Then, of course, there were the studies that said it was all about the headphones you used.</p><p>These dopey doctors even want you to believe that people aren't acting in a healthy fashion with their devices because they believe device makers wouldn't do anything to hurt them. &nbsp;Yep, since Apple and Creative love their customers so much, the devices must be safe to listen to for extended periods of time on full volume.</p><p>Frankly, if you believe that, there's a word for you: moron.</p>

[doogald]

I don't doubt that too many people listen to things with headphones way too loud. That said,

These dopey doctors even want you to believe that people aren't acting in a healthy fashion with their devices because they believe device makers wouldn't do anything to hurt them. &nbsp;Yep, since Apple and Creative love their customers so much, the devices must be safe to listen to for extended periods of time on full volume.

Yep; I don't think that's why people crank the volume.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Yep; I don't think that's why people crank the volume.

Of course it's not. Dare I say it, that sounds like lawyer speak getting ready for a class action lawsuit. :mad:

[Jason Dunn]

People have free will, and if they make the choice to crank up the volume day in and day out, they're choosing to lose their hearing. Blaming that on Apple, Creative, or any other device maker is lunacy.

[Vincent Ferrari]

People have free will, and if they make the choice to crank up the volume day in and day out, they're choosing to lose their hearing. Blaming that on Apple, Creative, or any other device maker is lunacy.

Wow, Jason. That sounds dangerously close to asking for personal responsibility, which as we all know is just a right wing fascist way of absolving evil corporations (in this case, big headphone) from their responsibilities to protect the proletariat.

I'm shocked by such statements. :eek:

[Joe Johaneman]

Wow, Jason. That sounds dangerously close to asking for personal responsibility, which as we all know is just a right wing fascist way of absolving evil corporations (in this case, big headphone) from their responsibilities to protect the proletariat.

I'm shocked by such statements. :eek:


Sarcasm much? LOL.

[Daring]

In a society where people sue for hot coffee being ... hot (and win!) does this really surprise anyone? You know fire burns, maybe we should sue the match companies. Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.

[jdmichal]

In a society where people sue for hot coffee being ... hot (and win!) does this really surprise anyone? You know fire burns, maybe we should sue the match companies. Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.

If you are referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants), She won the case, because she got third-degree burns. For those unfamiliar with the burn rating system, that roughly means her skin was melted off. Now do you think she deserved the $640,000 she was awarded? Her medical bills were probably at least a third of that, considering that skin grafts were involved. Also, the only reason her case was unique was because it went to court. McDonald's usually settles such cases out of court, since the rate of these lawsuits being brought up is not high enough to eat into their coffee profits.

Sorry, but this is a bit of a pet peeve. There are much better examples of frivolous litigation.

With that out of the way... I think this is all about the fine balance between consumer safety and corporate safety (as in, from lawsuits for things that many would deem should be "common sense"). That balance has always existed, and will always exist. And like everything else that's political, it will cycle leaning to one side or the other. So, in other words, calm down.

A few more punches:

First, the common populous uses iPod and PMP player interchangably, stemming from the fact that the iPod is by far the most popular PMP. You are now learning that this is a two-way street.

Secondly, I don't think there's any problem with these studies. How else are we going to learn what is harmful? How else are we going to learn what common behaviour is, in order to educate both consumers and manufacturers to better protect themselves.

Thirdly, if you are going to attack this study, why not attack it on actual mathmatical and/or scientific merit. Like the fact that the study was a whole 30 teenagers, possibly from a single location. A small group, with a very specific age range and possibly local, does not good statistical analysis make. That sounds a lot better than ranting about quack doctors and morons.

[Jason Dunn]

If you are referring to Liebeck v. McDonald's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants), She won the case, because she got third-degree burns. For those unfamiliar with the burn rating system, that roughly means her skin was melted off.

I'm not sure if this is in the Wikipedia entry, but I read elsewhere that the real problem with what McDonalds was doing was that they kept the coffee much hotter than they should have. Guess why? Because the hotter the coffee is kept, the longer it stays fresh, which means they have to make new pots less often. So it really came down to corporate greed - saving money on coffee - rather than the coffee being heated at a reasonable temperature for drinking like any sane person would do.

[Jason Dunn]

Lets sue the auto companies too (their struggling, they'll settle) because if you jump out of moving car you could get hurt. I looked in the manual and there is nothing about it.

Hahaha. Nice one! Let me know how that experiment works out for you. :D

[David Tucker]

I'm not sure if this is in the Wikipedia entry, but I read elsewhere that the real problem with what McDonalds was doing was that they kept the coffee much hotter than they should have. Guess why? Because the hotter the coffee is kept, the longer it stays fresh, which means they have to make new pots less often. So it really came down to corporate greed - saving money on coffee - rather than the coffee being heated at a reasonable temperature for drinking like any sane person would do.

I do have to say that as a person who considers myself a something of a coffee snob that McDonald's coffee was kept at what would be considered the proper temperature. Coffee should be served very hot. Many restaurants serve it much cooler to avoid liability issues but I think McDonald's coffee was the proper temperature. (I don't think the lawsuit was frivolous however!)

[Jason Dunn]

I do have to say that as a person who considers myself a something of a coffee snob that McDonald's coffee was kept at what would be considered the proper temperature. Coffee should be served very hot.

So you're saying that all coffee should be served between 180 and 190 degrees? And that the other restaurants that sell coffee at lower temperatures are doing it wrong? Or that home-brewed coffee at 135 to 140 degrees is also not hot enough? I don't drink coffee, so I wouldn't know, but it seems rather odd to me that McDonalds is the only one doing it "right" and that they're doing it for the sake of their customers....

What I didn't realize until today was that the woman was 79 years old. Balancing/holding a cup of coffee between one's legs and the precise pressure and dexterity required to remove the lid - without spilling the contents - would be virtually impossible for someone her age. With any disposable cup with a lid, if you apply pressure on the outside, then remove the lid, the cup will flex inward, so you have to reduce your pressure to avoid crumpling the cup. Doing this with your knees/thighs would be quite the challenge for anyone, let alone a 79 year old woman. I think McDonalds should have covered her medical expenses, but what she was trying to do was pretty damn silly...

[ucfgrad93]

People have free will, and if they make the choice to crank up the volume day in and day out, they're choosing to lose their hearing. Blaming that on Apple, Creative, or any other device maker is lunacy.

Agreed, this is insane. It is 100% the listeners' fault if they lose their hearing.

[David Tucker]

So you're saying that all coffee should be served between 180 and 190 degrees? And that the other restaurants that sell coffee at lower temperatures are doing it wrong? Or that home-brewed coffee at 135 to 140 degrees is also not hot enough? I don't drink coffee, so I wouldn't know, but it seems rather odd to me that McDonalds is the only one doing it "right" and that they're doing it for the sake of their customers....

What I didn't realize until today was that the woman was 79 years old. Balancing/holding a cup of coffee between one's legs and the precise pressure and dexterity required to remove the lid - without spilling the contents - would be virtually impossible for someone her age. With any disposable cup with a lid, if you apply pressure on the outside, then remove the lid, the cup will flex inward, so you have to reduce your pressure to avoid crumpling the cup. Doing this with your knees/thighs would be quite the challenge for anyone, let alone a 79 year old woman. I think McDonalds should have covered her medical expenses, but what she was trying to do was pretty damn silly...

Well, McDonald's has actually always been considered to have very good coffee if you're just looking for a cup of Joe. I would be surprised if coffee in a drip machine at home is 135 when its served immediately. That water is hot coming out of there. And by the time you're done pouring it and adding creamer and stirring it, its going to be cooler. If you serve coffee at 135 and then start adding that stuff you'll have lukewarm coffee pretty quick. Which is gross.

When you're getting coffee to go, in an insulated cup, its going to hold its heat. She was pretty foolish to try and do all of that in the car. And if you're going to do that in the car...put it in the cup holder. Of course, given how hot their coffee is, they should also probably do things like put the creamer & sugar in before giving it to you. I think if they offered that then that would have removed a lot of their liability since then you have no reason to open the container in the car.

I'm served food quite often that is too hot for immediate consumption. How many times I've burnt my mouth with pizza I can't remember! Or at a restaurant when you get a plate so hot you can't touch it. Food is going to cool quickly so I would expect it to start out hot.