I AM AFRAID!!!!

Eli

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,608
It seems like the "pussies" who are pushing this research are the college and NFL players who are trying to figure out why they are developing dementia, depression, and memory loss at an early age. A lot of the brains in the study were donated at the request of players or their families.

That's such a bs excuse lol. Players know they are going to get hurt and possibly have life changing events happen to them by playing the game. It's like the people who sue Mcdonald's because the coffee was too hot.
 

Eli

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,608
Let's also make sure to change the rules to boxing. Make them wear foam gloves because you may develop Alzheimer's. Or in baseball make the entire infield wear facemasks because the ball may hit you in the face and kill you. NASCAR no one can go get 50 mph too many crashes. World of pussies
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
That's such a bs excuse lol. Players know they are going to get hurt and possibly have life changing events happen to them by playing the game. It's like the people who sue Mcdonald's because the coffee was too hot.

I agree with a lot about your comment but you're wrong about the McDonald's case. A good friend of mine was the Claim Manager for Mickey D's and oversaw that case, based on the evidence Micky D's was liable for the lady's injuries.
 

Jerry the Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,943
Location
Chapin, SC
Little known fact is that the lady who won the hot coffee suit against McDonald's died without ever collecting a dime. Her estate settled with McDonald's for a very small sum. The whole hot coffee thing is a bit of an urban legend.

Go Jackets!
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
They didn't put the lid on all the way?

No, the coffee was heated about 180-190 degrees higher than the 165 degree serving temperature to keep it hotter longer, hot enough to scald. She suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her vulva and inside of her thighs. Initial demand of settlement was 20K versus an offer of $800.00. What killed Mickey D's at trial was they had known of this practice for over 10 years and had settled many prior claims.
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
Little known fact is that the lady who won the hot coffee suit against McDonald's died without ever collecting a dime. Her estate settled with McDonald's for a very small sum. The whole hot coffee thing is a bit of an urban legend.

Go Jackets!

Not it's not an urban legend. The original punitive damage award of approx 3MM was reduced by 80% by the trial judge but it is not urban legend in any shape. form or fashion
 

Milwaukee

Banned
Messages
7,277
Location
Milwaukee, WI
No, the coffee was heated about 180-190 degrees higher than the 165 degree serving temperature to keep it hotter longer, hot enough to scald. She suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns to her vulva and inside of her thighs. Initial demand of settlement was 20K versus an offer of $800.00. What killed Mickey D's at trial was they had known of this practice for over 10 years and had settled many prior claims.

Was she trying to pour it down her thighs or was she just a moron?

Asking for a friend.
 

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
Was she trying to pour it down her thighs or was she just a moron?

Asking for a friend.

She was sitting in the passenger seat , vehicle was stopped. She went to put the cream/sugar into the coffee and the cup tilted. The award for general damages was reduced for her comparative fault accordingly. The issues were the temperature of the coffee (well above industry norms), serving a product with an unreasonable chance of injury to the consumer and the long prior knowledge of Mickey D's of the danger presented by their business practices. It's the same principle that hung Ford in the Pinto cases.

NB she was also 79 when this happened
 

MtownJacket

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
84
The quality of the helmet doesn't matter all that much. Concussions and CTE occur because the brain slams against the interior wall of the scull. The only way to prevent them is to stop head collisions altogether. The helmet itself gives a false sense of security, so everyone leads with it so often. Even if you pad the hell out of it, the head suddenly stopping is going to cause a problem.

For the record, this is false. Better helmets can and do reduce concussion rates. That can be demonstrated in two ways. One is a simple physics explanation. The other is the numerous studies that have been conducted over the last few decades (example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16462481).

Now for the simple physics explanation. Ignoring the fact that rotational acceleration is important in concussions, a simple prevention model would be to minimize peak linear acceleration in head collisions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20351593). Consider a football player whose head is moving at a certain speed before before head collision and is at rest after head collision. In order for a change in head velocity to occur there must be acceleration. One way to minimize the peak acceleration is to ensure that the force the helmet exerts on the head is relatively constant rather than a sudden spike. That can be achieved with clever helmet design and material choice. Current helmet designs have poor shock absorption mechanisms involving collision forces that aren't remotely constant. Another way to minimize peak acceleration is to have a smaller force acting over a longer distance. That translates into thicker helmets with softer shock absorption.

There is a lot of room for helmet innovation.
 

Cam

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,591
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
There lies the problem. If the only brains observed are football players, then the result will be exactly what they set out to prove and will lead to their hinted but unstated goal of ending football. If their population of brains represent football players in the proper population per cent of the general public with dementia related death, then their work could be validated. And don't believe that any male dominated activity can't be killed in the PC world.
That's beginning to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory. An equivalent of what you're saying is that lung cancer researchers make up their results because they want to kill the cigarette industry. That's not their goal; their goal is to do research, uncover connections, and add to human knowledge about cancer. They don't have anything substantial to gain by hurting the cigarette industry, cigarettes just happened to be heavily connected to cancer.

And they address your points in the article. They're looking for CTE specifically, which has specific markers, which they state is found in vastly higher percentages in football players compared to the general population. However, the director of the study even cautions toward taking the data at face value because "there is tremendous selection bias" (her quote) due to brains being donated by those players or their families who saw visible symptoms. She's saying to take it with a grain of salt. They have 1200 brains yet to analyze too. However, they point out that if those 1200 come back negative (highly unlikely), it's still about 9% of former players being diagnosed with CTE as a baseline value. That means at the very least one guy on offense and one on defense on the field is likely to develop the disease at some point. But the point of the research is figuring out exactly how it develops, whether it can be reversed, when to advise players to retire, etc. If we ignore there is a problem, then you won't see any innovation in the study of the disease and development of equipment to prevent against it. Football as a sport or professional institution won't be killed and there is no precedent or evidence to suggest that will ever happen. I think people are overreacting.
 

Cam

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,591
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
That's such a bs excuse lol. Players know they are going to get hurt and possibly have life changing events happen to them by playing the game. It's like the people who sue Mcdonald's because the coffee was too hot.
I'm confused. What excuse? The players that didn't know they were going to develop those symptoms? I would wager that before 2005 people knew that playing football would cause broken bones, ligament tears, concussions, etc. Short term injuries mostly with kind of a vague idea of what lasting effects might be there. I think it's the current research that's just saying, "There's a calculated small possibility you will have headaches and dizziness in 10 years, memory loss 10 years from then, and dementia, tremors, suicidal thoughts 10-20 years from then." There's no harm in just laying out what can possibly happen based on what we're observing in the older players. You're just protecting the players by giving them a choice. If they know this information and still opt to play, then everything is how it should be. Makes no sense to ignore the information.
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,412
That's beginning to sound a lot like a conspiracy theory. An equivalent of what you're saying is that lung cancer researchers make up their results because they want to kill the cigarette industry. That's not their goal; their goal is to do research, uncover connections, and add to human knowledge about cancer. They don't have anything substantial to gain by hurting the cigarette industry, cigarettes just happened to be heavily connected to cancer.

And they address your points in the article. They're looking for CTE specifically, which has specific markers, which they state is found in vastly higher percentages in football players compared to the general population. However, the director of the study even cautions toward taking the data at face value because "there is tremendous selection bias" (her quote) due to brains being donated by those players or their families who saw visible symptoms. She's saying to take it with a grain of salt. They have 1200 brains yet to analyze too. However, they point out that if those 1200 come back negative (highly unlikely), it's still about 9% of former players being diagnosed with CTE as a baseline value. That means at the very least one guy on offense and one on defense on the field is likely to develop the disease at some point. But the point of the research is figuring out exactly how it develops, whether it can be reversed, when to advise players to retire, etc. If we ignore there is a problem, then you won't see any innovation in the study of the disease and development of equipment to prevent against it. Football as a sport or professional institution won't be killed and there is no precedent or evidence to suggest that will ever happen. I think people are overreacting.
President Theodore Roosevelt came very close to outlawing football.
 

Cam

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,591
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
President Theodore Roosevelt came very close to outlawing football.
I remember that. I read that John Heisman was pretty instrumental in keeping it in place, so thank God for him in multiple respects. However, that was at a time of hardly any safety equipment when people were literally dying on the field or a few days after the game. Because of that realization that there was a problem, we've since been able to innovate the pads, helmets, and tackling procedures into what we have today. Also, that was in the infancy of the sport before the snap and forward pass (latter also very controversial). They'd have a scrum instead of a snap (iirc) and that was highly injury inducing.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,649
She was sitting in the passenger seat , vehicle was stopped. She went to put the cream/sugar into the coffee and the cup tilted. The award for general damages was reduced for her comparative fault accordingly. The issues were the temperature of the coffee (well above industry norms), serving a product with an unreasonable chance of injury to the consumer and the long prior knowledge of Mickey D's of the danger presented by their business practices. It's the same principle that hung Ford in the Pinto cases.



Back in the day when this occurred I used to get coffee at McDonald's on the way to work . They would hand you the coffee via dr ive thru that had a curfb so yhpu ha d to reach way out as they handed u y our coffee that was piping hot in a thin cup .


I assume that an engineer calculated the savings of getting the coffee extra hot save money on cup
They then hand you the silly little hard to open creamers .


Just gave up on McDonald's and went to a donut shop. No drive thru but great bear claws.

Perhaps I can sue md for my weight gain.
 
Top