110 N.F.L. Brains • Hacker News Board

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#161

Post by tptacek » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

burger_moon wrote: post #137

tptacek wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the modern risk, right? Taking into account all the things those professions do to mitigate the risk? If you've seen someone remove asbestos in the past 20 years, it's obviously not as if they're just wearing jeans and a t-shirt and hauling armloads of the stuff.

Now we have ceramic wool which doesn't have regulations like asbestos does but is still a known carcinogen and the handling of it is done without any PPE.

Right, but the comparison being made here is between football and asbestos removal, which is a profession people have today.

The subtext was, "even asbestos removal has a lower risk of health problems than football".

But I think that comparison may be confounded by the fact that the modern asbestos removal profession is organized around safety. In other words, that asbestos removal is not a good comparison point for high-risk professions.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#162

Post by urda » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:09 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #156

urda wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you're new here, or just in a foul mood, but myself and others have been pretty calm commenting on your original post. Your comparison was weak, completely off topic, and you get upset when it's pointed out? Where do you think you are? Take a moment and review the HN Guidelines please: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conv…

It is humorous to me that the miscreants are always first to cite the HN Guidelines, as if it's their shield for their utter obnoxiousness.

Just stop, your abusive and negative comment was already flagged, and you continue to dig your hole deeper.

Guidelines are exactly that, guidelines. If you can't follow them here on HN please avoid commenting.

I will engage no further with a user like yourself who cannot comment in a civil matter.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#163

Post by 3131s » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #130

ggreer wrote: post #37

Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain, but this article does a terrible job of making that case. The doctor in charge of the study says as much: > The set of players posthumously tested by Dr. McKee is far from a random sample of N.F.L. retirees. “There’s a tremendous selection bias,” she has cautioned, noting that many families have donated brains specifically because the former player showed sympt…

> Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain It's bad for you in general. I used to go a gym with some ex-NFL guys, and they literally could barely move most days. All of them told me they would never let their kids play football. Every single one had life long lasting ailments, and none of them were the guys who made millions.

I was around an ex NFL player at a restaurant once and he also was having trouble walking already. In contrast I played tennis a few times with Trent Tucker after he retired from the Chicago Bulls, and he was still really athletic and could even beat good D1 tennis players.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#164

Post by bisRepetita » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:17 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #111

mikeash wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also a big difference between "you might die right in the middle of this very fun activity, here are the fatality stats from the past 30 years, here are the things you can do which are proven to reduce your risk" versus "this sport is Totally Safe, and to prove it we're going to resist every attempt to investigate long-term injuries so that you'll never really know."

Sports, as a fun hobby is one thing, but the article discusses the NFL; big business in and for the USA. Rather than say hey, this is hurting people, maybe we could change the rules some, the NFL is doubling down and is the one pushing the "all sports are dangerous" emotional narrative to mother's of children, in order to get them to play, all so they can pad their bottom line. http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/arti…

The study is about NFL players, but the harm starts in high school and college. Wait for more studies...

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#165

Post by switchbak » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:19 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #101

nicpottier wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about GP, but I'm an aggressive skier and very, very rarely hit my head. I have maybe a dozen falls a season, wear a helmet and am not colliding with anything. This is a silly comparison.

A sub-concussion doesn't require that you hit your head. It simply requires a g-force event -- like skiing quickly over rough terrain -- that shakes the brain around, building up the scar tissue that we know as CTE. Offensive linesmen engage with the opponent via their body/arms, seldom hitting with their head, but that rapid g-force of the body stopping is enough. Again, someone studied football players because the…

Having played the game for years, I can assure you the impact being generated on the line is very real. These folks do interact with their body/arms, but head on head contact is a very real part of the game, and that is the part that really affects the brain.

And the part of soccer that seems to cause concern is heading the ball, not the running around part.

Comparing helmet to helmet impacts to skiing over rough terrain feels like a real stretch here.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#166

Post by ggreer » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

warcher wrote: post #146

ggreer wrote: post #37

Playing football is almost certainly bad for your brain, but this article does a terrible job of making that case. The doctor in charge of the study says as much: > The set of players posthumously tested by Dr. McKee is far from a random sample of N.F.L. retirees. “There’s a tremendous selection bias,” she has cautioned, noting that many families have donated brains specifically because the former player showed sympt…

They didn't say that. Here's the quote I believe you skimmed and misinterpreted. "About 1,300 former players have died since the B.U. group began examining brains. So even if every one of the other 1,200 players had tested negative — which even the heartiest skeptics would agree could not possibly be the case — the minimum C.T.E. prevalence would be close to 9 percent, vastly higher than in the general population." T…

As I said before, that's in the 10th paragraph of the article. The first line people read is:

> A neuropathologist has examined the brains of 111 N.F.L. players — and 110 were found to have C.T.E.

It's incredibly disingenuous to lead with that. It makes readers think that the rate of CTE is almost 100%. Readers have to get through nine more paragraphs (including profiles of two NFL players) before the truth shows up. Yes, NFL players have absurdly high rates of CTE compared to the general population. Nobody in this thread is saying otherwise. But disingenuity makes your side easier to dismiss and discredit, even if it's right. That's why I criticized the article.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#167

Post by bisRepetita » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:28 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #45

jonbarker wrote: post #33

I'm more interested in what happens to the brain with youth soccer. Bigger problem than a couple hundred pro athletes.

I agree. Heading soccer balls is proven to at least temporarily reduce IQ. I've never let my kids play that sport. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/1... http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/health/soccer-headers-concussi...

Do you let your kids play football?

Honest question, bc at the end of the day, beyond all scientific studies, it is parents who will define which sports are popular and actually played.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#168

Post by jpindar » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:36 PM UTC

treehau5 wrote: post #41

FanaHOVA wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about the equipment (even though obviously only concussion vs concussion + skull fracture is a step forward!), but the difference between football and rugby goes way beyond the equipment. In the former there's no lateral passing, which means that the ball carrier will always be a target for the whole defense. In rugby you can pass the ball, which makes the defense spread wider and doesn't allow them to…

Precisely. In rugby, it is much more stressed and emphasized to make secure tackles. In football, at any given point and time there is one person with virtually a huge bullseye on them and it is sometimes a valid tactic to lay down a more punishing hit (cause a fumble, make a statement, scare your opponent to make a mistake or drop the ball next time, etc) at the expensive of not making a "secure, form tackle" Ironic…

Indeed they do: http://www.seahawks.com/video/2015/06/11/2015-seahawks-tackl...

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#169

Post by enraged_camel » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:37 PM UTC

Goladus wrote: post #143

enraged_camel wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What pure drivel. What does it mean to be a "free country"? Many things in the US are illegal. Does that mean we aren't "free"?

The pure drivel is this response. I strongly object to bland appeals to authority to shut down things you don't like. There are strong arguments associated with the banning of most illegal behavior. Usually these arguments are also very specific, lead to very specific restrictions, and are implemented at the most relevant jurisdiction.

I don't want football to be illegal. But I also want the NFL to own up to and be fully transparent and forthcoming about the risks of the sport.

For example, it would be great if there was a short message before each game is aired that said "the sport you are about to watch is know to cause X in players. X is an extremely painful and debilitating condition." Then play a short clip of patients suffering from X.

Similarly, anyone who wants to become a player should be required to watch such a video educating them about the risks.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#170

Post by wahern » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 9:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #109

wahern wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't put together a simple number based on the papers I'm finding, especially if we're limited to mesothelioma. Cancer risks are reported in units of f/mL.yr (fibers per milliliter of air per year) or f/g (embedded fibers per gram of dry lung tissue). And there's a huge range to occupational exposure, which I'm not capable of relating back to the risk numbers. (I don't have the numerical skills.) But suffice it to…

That's the modern risk, right? Taking into account all the things those professions do to mitigate the risk? If you've seen someone remove asbestos in the past 20 years, it's obviously not as if they're just wearing jeans and a t-shirt and hauling armloads of the stuff.

That's the risk deduced from the study of cohorts going back to at least mid-century. But it's specific to mesothelioma, not all cancers resulting from exposure. Mesothelioma seems to have a long lag time between exposure and presentation, suggesting to me that many of the cases being studied would relate back to exposure before modern occupational safety regulations.

Also, there are several kinds of asbestos fibers (broadly serpentine and amphibole), and the most lethal kind seem to be present typically as only a small fraction. Which makes it harder to relate risk (typically in units of f/mL.yr of a specific fiber type) to occupational exposures (often, AFAICT, in units of f/mL.yr of mixed fibers).

I suppose some of the horror stories about insane cancer incidences are from areas with peculiar asbestos deposits. Most of these studies I found were looking at averages of various cohorts (based on occupation, mix of fiber, etc), so wouldn't reflect those peculiar environments. Which I think is fair when comparing to CTE, otherwise you can cherry pick to exaggerate or minimize the relative harm of CTE. Ultimately there's a limit to the comparison.

But be skeptical. I'm gleaning this from some some quick Google searches and a superficial parsing of research papers, trying to create a 10,000' picture from claims and statements that are couched in very specific and narrow terms.