110 N.F.L. Brains • Hacker News Board

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#111

Post by fragmede » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:28 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #47

mikeh1010 wrote: post #12

I want to push back on the "every sport is dangerous" argument I'm seeing in here. There's a difference between "you might die right in the middle of this very fun activity" and "you might die slowly and horribly years from now when you're retired and in the midst of raising a family." I ski pretty aggressively, and of course I might die doing that. But every day I go home and know, "well it wasn't today! Today was j…

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/articles/en/nfl-football-...

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#112

Post by kenjackson » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:29 PM UTC

nugget wrote: post #57

bhouston wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

So what are the safer competitive team sports for kids to participate in?

One of the safest sports I've seen is oddly flag football. Especially for youth. There's typically no blocking allowed at the youth level, and obviously no tackling.

Of the youth sports I'm involved with flag football and baseball are the two safest (especially if you're not a pitcher). Then basketball sits in the middle as pretty safe. The main worry in basketball is running into someone going for the ball. I'd put soccer and tackle football as the most dangerous (tackle football being more dangerous). If they eliminate heading out of youth soccer, it would move it into the basketball level of safety.

I'm not sure there is any way to change tackle football to make it reasonably safe for kids.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#113

Post by saulrh » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:35 PM UTC

Goladus wrote: post #59

saulrh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9% chance, the best possible case given the current data, of a horrible, slow, lingering death 20 years later is still unacceptable . What's the rate for getting mesothelioma after working with asbestos?

Unacceptable to whom? Is the US a free country or not?

Well, we already ban:

* Selling cigarettes to children

* Building buildings that burn to the ground with everyone trapped inside

* Murder

So... I guess that America isn't a free country? If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems. But since none of those things are true, there're all sorts of predatory and greedy-counterproductive practices that are, yes, unacceptable, things that we have to ban for our civilization to continue to improve. I submit that american football, in its current form, is likely one of them. Too much glamour, too much money, too much tradition, too good at messing with people's heads, both in the way it sucks everyone into it (high school football!) and with the brain damage thing.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#114

Post by dnautics » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

Is no one curious about the one brain that didn't get CTE? there could be some insight into how to prevent Alzheimer's for example, since oxidative inflammatory responses are invoked in both conditions as a possible mechanism.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#115

Post by urda » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #68

mikeh1010 wrote: post #12

I want to push back on the "every sport is dangerous" argument I'm seeing in here. There's a difference between "you might die right in the middle of this very fun activity" and "you might die slowly and horribly years from now when you're retired and in the midst of raising a family." I ski pretty aggressively, and of course I might die doing that. But every day I go home and know, "well it wasn't today! Today was j…

But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE because no one has ever looked to investigate it. In football, as in boxing, the original investigation began because head trauma is obvious, but as the study broadened some of the worst cases of CTE were actually offensive linesmen. These are generally not the players who dish or receive hard hits, and many had never had a suspected concussion in…

> But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE

Where are you skiing that results in you receiving repeated blows to your head?

The comparison doesn't hold up at all, and OP's original point still stands against yours.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#116

Post by tedunangst » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:46 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #108

kasey_junk wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it pay better than a career as a dockworker or insulation installer over the course of each career? Did it when the people being impacted by CTE today played? I think most people overestimate the career earnings of the average football player and especially don't discount for the dramatic increase in pay that happened in the last 20 years?

Or the fact that an overwhelming majority of football players don't ever collect a paycheck. It isn't like all of these NFL players just started receiving brain damage once they reached the NFL at the age of 22. They probably started playing football in their early teens. Odds are no one else on that player's middle or high school teams and only a hand full of people on their college team made the NFL. Yet they were…

Something like 6% of HS students play football. If 9% of them get CTE, that'd be a huge number of people.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#117

Post by endorphone » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:47 PM UTC

urda wrote: post #115

endorphone wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE because no one has ever looked to investigate it. In football, as in boxing, the original investigation began because head trauma is obvious, but as the study broadened some of the worst cases of CTE were actually offensive linesmen. These are generally not the players who dish or receive hard hits, and many had never had a suspected concussion in…

> But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE Where are you skiing that results in you receiving repeated blows to your head? The comparison doesn't hold up at all, and OP's original point still stands against yours.

In an edit to the original comment -- an edit that shouldn't even be necessary -- I made it painfully clear quite some time ago that it has positively nothing to do with "blows to the head". Yet still people keeps rushing to post these noise replies.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#118

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:47 PM UTC

saulrh wrote: post #40

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…

9% chance, the best possible case given the current data, of a horrible, slow, lingering death 20 years later is still unacceptable . What's the rate for getting mesothelioma after working with asbestos?

>What's the rate for getting mesothelioma after working with asbestos?

That's a bad comparison. You don't just get a little bit of cancer. You get it or you don't and when it gets caught is what matters. Cognitive decline is not binary like that.

With asbestos it depends on how much exposure, how often and how long. PPE for use with high temperatures used to be asbestos before that was a liability. You don't see "served in an artillery unit in 'nam" on the TV commercials for the lawyers who litigate that stuff because only occasionally wearing asbestos gloves as part of your day job for a few years isn't a big deal. The same goes for doing brake jobs on your own vehicles since the '60s. It's not enough exposure. The advice for people who find it in their houses is to make sure it's not getting disturbed. Low levels of exposure = low risk. Sure, you can come up with an average decrease in life expectancy per some amount of exposure (this is popular with cigarettes) but it's not very meaningful when the result of the exposure to asbestos is a coin toss with worse odds years down the line.

Regardless, I'd take a slow death from age 45 to 65 if it meant that my family shot to the top of the economic ladder over the course of my career. Unless you really, really screw up wealth doesn't go away between generations.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#119

Post by urda » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:50 PM UTC

endorphone wrote: post #117

urda wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you have absolutely no idea if aggressive skiing is giving you CTE Where are you skiing that results in you receiving repeated blows to your head? The comparison doesn't hold up at all, and OP's original point still stands against yours.

In an edit to the original comment -- an edit that shouldn't even be necessary -- I made it painfully clear quite some time ago that it has positively nothing to do with "blows to the head". Yet still people keeps rushing to post these noise replies.

... except "Blows to the head" has everything to do with this from the article to OP's point.

When you have a number of HN commenters correcting you, it's not them it's you.

Re: 110 N.F.L. Brains

#120

Post by endorphone » Tue, Jul 25, 2017, 7:52 PM UTC

urda wrote: post #119

endorphone wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an edit to the original comment -- an edit that shouldn't even be necessary -- I made it painfully clear quite some time ago that it has positively nothing to do with "blows to the head". Yet still people keeps rushing to post these noise replies.

... except "Blows to the head" has everything to do with this from the article to OP's point. When you have a number of HN commenters correcting you, it's not them it's you.

What an ignorant, obnoxious reply. HN isn't for you.