12 ms·

This was a really well-written article. I think for years I had naturally thought that traumatic brain injury as a result of explosives basically caused the bra

This was a really well-written article. I think for years I had naturally thought that traumatic brain injury as a result of explosives basically caused the brain to rattle so hard that it smashed against the skull causing contusions, but apparently this is something different. The way it's explained in the article is that this is actually a result of the blast energy wave bouncing off of differently dense brain tissue sections and causing cavitation. I'm glad that these issues are finally being brought to light, It's truly unfortunate that no matter how highly trained and skilled some of these soldiers are, that blast waves from IEDs or in this case from their own munitions can result in such insidious physiological changes.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
From what I’ve heard from people in artillery is that the brass hardly cares about occupational safety. If they need to get rounds down field they get rounds down field first and make sure you have proper ppe for that second. And what ppe they do have is seen as improper. Not much you can even do when the issue is local blast damage and the gun design demands you to be so close to it.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Yet another reason to not join the military. You’re just fuel for the machine. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruiting-problem-male.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruit...
  - mc32 2y ago
    These days we have a senate committee approving a bill that would register women for the draught… it’s getting closer. Men aren’t enough, for this machine, apparently.
    - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
      Equality should mean equality! :D
      - mc32 2y ago
        I hear you. But women can continue the line —society. Men can’t bear children —society dies. Men get sent to war, women stay in the homeland, many of the men may not return and the women may have to persevere, with sacrifice but society can push on. If it were reversed, that society may well collapse. The Spartans didn’t send their women off and let the men stay back in the homeland.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        This sounds like discrimination. Only women can produce offspring? Too bad, so sad. Everyone serves if it is required.
        throwaway22032 2y ago
        It doesn't sound like discrimination, it is discrimination, tautologically. The onus is on you to show that it is bad in this case. We discriminate routinely, children are exempt from working for example.
        influx 2y ago
        Can’t men just identify as women to avoid the draft?
        hashiyakshmi 2y ago
        No, changing your gender identity doesn't affect your selective service registration
        raffraffraff 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it's a pretty straight forward question with a non-obvious answer.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      We haven't drafted people since the Vietnam War. There's plenty of draft fodder to dig into without having to expand the eligibility criteria.
      - mc32 2y ago
        Which raises the question of why they thought they'd approve this bill in committee? It's still very odd, weird, ungentlemanly and somewhat uncivilized.
        coldtea 2y ago
        Funnily almost none of the adjectives here fits what's described.
        zo1 2y ago
        To follow the analogy, the reason they did it is because the "DEI outrage machine" needs fuel, and this was the next low-hanging fruit. To the machine, women aren't as important as perpetuating itself, so hence we now are starting to get women drafted into traditionally (and oddly, actually gender appropriate) male-roles that are actually dangerous.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > now are starting to get women drafted We haven't even drafted men in fifty years.
    - vitus 2y ago
      Eh. Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg) That policy changed by 2016, so the rationale no longer holds. With that said, we also haven't had mandatory conscription since the Vietnam War, and I think it's unlikely that we would any time in the near future, short of WW3 landing on our front doorstep (either directly or as a result of NATO's collective defense clause) -- recall that we didn't formally enter WW2 until after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I recall that the only reason I signed up for selective service was because it was a requirement to receive federal financial aid for college, although it seems that requirement was removed in 2023.
      - logicchains 2y ago
        >Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced.
        sofixa 2y ago
        > Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced. People keep repeating this, but nobody has so far answered my follow-up question: do you have any example where that actually happened? Even in heavily impacted countries (like Serbia in WWI, which lost around 50% of its prewar male population), there were no laws or campaigns to allow harems or one man - multiple women combinations.
    - cjbgkagh 2y ago
      Not sure why you are getting downvoted. I am aghast with the press-ganging going on in Ukraine. I think if Ukraine can’t motivate volunteers to fight then they must surrender. I get that we (the west) wouldn’t like that but they’re taking volunteers so anyone who wants to fight that war is free to do so. Too many people wanting other people to fight their wars for them. I don’t even like my country, the thought of being press ganged by them would make me like the country even less.
      - blackguardx 2y ago
        By this same logic, Russia should also surrender.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        I agree, they should
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        Russia seems to have little trouble forcibly conscripting men from their various territories and sending them to fight.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - sofixa 2y ago
        It's literally a question of life or death. If Ukraine surrenders, that could very well be the end of the country and ethnic/cultural identity. Look up what happens to Ukrainians captured by the Russian army - rape (irrespective of gender), torture, starvation, daily beatings, etc. Russia has kidnapped hundreds of thousands of kids too. Surrender is not an option. Unfortunately, everyone (men and women included) must do their duty to stop a genocide.
        cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Are you in Ukraine doing your duty? If you are not Ukrainian they do take volunteers. Surrender is an option, none of those things is worse than death. I would not make that trade. If the Ukrainian men want to stop it they can still volunteer, so can anyone else. And it looks like they will lose the war anyway, so they’ll have to surrender anyway except now after a huge amount of death and destruction. Ukraine is heavily indebted and the belief that some Marshal plan reconstruction would enable them to pay that off is unrealistic.
  - Log_out_ 2y ago
    Thats a nice sentiment you got there. Mind if i take it: Every dictator everywhere everytime. And it turns out the international order cant survive defectors.one large party going imperial or isolatinist and its bsck to olden times.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      Not one, but several large parties have been globally "imperial" for centuries. Except if by international order we mean "the will of the stronger dogs imposed upon the whole world, with tons of mayhem and blood, but it's not done to white people so it doesn't matter"?
      - FredPret 2y ago
        Unsubstantiated sensationalism. Violent deaths per capita is trending down both inside states and between states, and has been for nearly a century despite increases in tension and extreme improvements in weaponry.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      No boots on the ground. Deliver freedom and justice from afar on the business end of a fast moving vehicle, whether that is subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic, or ballistic.
- jojobas 2y ago
  Because if the rounds don't fly down field they'll fly back. Shock damage from firing a gun might be bad, damage from incoming shells is much worse.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    While that is true, you have years and years to get the proper PPE in the artillery before you ever need to lob shells.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    When is the last time the US faced an artillery force with similar range capabilities though? Desert Storm?
munificent 2y ago
This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less common.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  I always wonder if it occurred more, or, in a modern society, was recorded more. Just thinking aloud.
  - munificent 2y ago
    I think it's probably both. I think the negative consequences of being in a war increased significantly after the invention of artillery, but also psychological stuff was under-reported the farther you go back in time.
- joegibbs 2y ago
  That's interesting that at the time, in WW1, it was assumed to be a physical injury to the brain caused by the shockwave of exploding artillery shells (hence the name). A few years later a consensus evolved that it's a psychological problem caused by the stress of combat, which was the prevailing opinion for about 100 years. And now it's looking like it might actually be a physical injury caused by shockwave damage to the brain.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Shell shock was considered related to neurasthenia (weak nerves) which is the 18th century name for ME/CFS. TBI, ME/CFS and PTSD are highly correlated for what I believe are the same genetic predisposition plus an environmental trigger.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      ME/CFS can also be triggered by viruses. Epstein-Barr virus and SARS-CoV-2 both are suspected triggers.
Aeolun 2y ago
I swear I’ve read about something similar happening to athletes in bobsledding due to the vibration of the brain.
- etc-hosts 2y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/sports/olympics/olympics-bobsled-suicide-brain-injuries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/sports/olympics/olympics-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/sports/olympics/bobsled-travis-bell-joe-sisson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/sports/olympics/bobsled-t...

kjkjadksj 2y ago

From what I’ve heard from people in artillery is that the brass hardly cares about occupational safety. If they need to get rounds down field they get rounds down field first and make sure you have proper ppe for that second. And what ppe they do have is seen as improper. Not much you can even do when the issue is local blast damage and the gun design demands you to be so close to it.

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Yet another reason to not join the military. You’re just fuel for the machine. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruiting-problem-male.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruit...
- mc32 2y ago
  These days we have a senate committee approving a bill that would register women for the draught… it’s getting closer. Men aren’t enough, for this machine, apparently.
  - shrimp_emoji 2y ago
    Equality should mean equality! :D
    - mc32 2y ago
      I hear you. But women can continue the line —society. Men can’t bear children —society dies. Men get sent to war, women stay in the homeland, many of the men may not return and the women may have to persevere, with sacrifice but society can push on. If it were reversed, that society may well collapse. The Spartans didn’t send their women off and let the men stay back in the homeland.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        This sounds like discrimination. Only women can produce offspring? Too bad, so sad. Everyone serves if it is required.
        throwaway22032 2y ago
        It doesn't sound like discrimination, it is discrimination, tautologically. The onus is on you to show that it is bad in this case. We discriminate routinely, children are exempt from working for example.
        influx 2y ago
        Can’t men just identify as women to avoid the draft?
        hashiyakshmi 2y ago
        No, changing your gender identity doesn't affect your selective service registration
        raffraffraff 2y ago
        I'm not sure why you're getting downvotes for this because it's a pretty straight forward question with a non-obvious answer.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    We haven't drafted people since the Vietnam War. There's plenty of draft fodder to dig into without having to expand the eligibility criteria.
    - mc32 2y ago
      Which raises the question of why they thought they'd approve this bill in committee? It's still very odd, weird, ungentlemanly and somewhat uncivilized.
      - coldtea 2y ago
        Funnily almost none of the adjectives here fits what's described.
      - zo1 2y ago
        To follow the analogy, the reason they did it is because the "DEI outrage machine" needs fuel, and this was the next low-hanging fruit. To the machine, women aren't as important as perpetuating itself, so hence we now are starting to get women drafted into traditionally (and oddly, actually gender appropriate) male-roles that are actually dangerous.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        > now are starting to get women drafted We haven't even drafted men in fifty years.
  - vitus 2y ago
    Eh. Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostker_v._Goldberg) That policy changed by 2016, so the rationale no longer holds. With that said, we also haven't had mandatory conscription since the Vietnam War, and I think it's unlikely that we would any time in the near future, short of WW3 landing on our front doorstep (either directly or as a result of NATO's collective defense clause) -- recall that we didn't formally enter WW2 until after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I recall that the only reason I signed up for selective service was because it was a requirement to receive federal financial aid for college, although it seems that requirement was removed in 2023.
    - logicchains 2y ago
      >Historically, the rationale for excluding women from the draft was that they weren't eligible to serve in combat roles, voluntarily or otherwise Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced.
      - sofixa 2y ago
        > Historically countries didn't let women fight in wars because they didn't want their civilisation to die out. If a country loses a double-digit percent of its men it can still repopulate just as quickly, because one man can make multiple women pregnant, while if it loses its women then it takes significantly longer to repopulate, because one woman can't have multiple babies at the same time so the birthrate will necessarily be reduced. People keep repeating this, but nobody has so far answered my follow-up question: do you have any example where that actually happened? Even in heavily impacted countries (like Serbia in WWI, which lost around 50% of its prewar male population), there were no laws or campaigns to allow harems or one man - multiple women combinations.
  - cjbgkagh 2y ago
    Not sure why you are getting downvoted. I am aghast with the press-ganging going on in Ukraine. I think if Ukraine can’t motivate volunteers to fight then they must surrender. I get that we (the west) wouldn’t like that but they’re taking volunteers so anyone who wants to fight that war is free to do so. Too many people wanting other people to fight their wars for them. I don’t even like my country, the thought of being press ganged by them would make me like the country even less.
    - blackguardx 2y ago
      By this same logic, Russia should also surrender.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        I agree, they should
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        Russia seems to have little trouble forcibly conscripting men from their various territories and sending them to fight.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - sofixa 2y ago
      It's literally a question of life or death. If Ukraine surrenders, that could very well be the end of the country and ethnic/cultural identity. Look up what happens to Ukrainians captured by the Russian army - rape (irrespective of gender), torture, starvation, daily beatings, etc. Russia has kidnapped hundreds of thousands of kids too. Surrender is not an option. Unfortunately, everyone (men and women included) must do their duty to stop a genocide.
      - cjbgkagh 2y ago
        Are you in Ukraine doing your duty? If you are not Ukrainian they do take volunteers. Surrender is an option, none of those things is worse than death. I would not make that trade. If the Ukrainian men want to stop it they can still volunteer, so can anyone else. And it looks like they will lose the war anyway, so they’ll have to surrender anyway except now after a huge amount of death and destruction. Ukraine is heavily indebted and the belief that some Marshal plan reconstruction would enable them to pay that off is unrealistic.
- Log_out_ 2y ago
  Thats a nice sentiment you got there. Mind if i take it: Every dictator everywhere everytime. And it turns out the international order cant survive defectors.one large party going imperial or isolatinist and its bsck to olden times.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    Not one, but several large parties have been globally "imperial" for centuries. Except if by international order we mean "the will of the stronger dogs imposed upon the whole world, with tons of mayhem and blood, but it's not done to white people so it doesn't matter"?
    - FredPret 2y ago
      Unsubstantiated sensationalism. Violent deaths per capita is trending down both inside states and between states, and has been for nearly a century despite increases in tension and extreme improvements in weaponry.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    No boots on the ground. Deliver freedom and justice from afar on the business end of a fast moving vehicle, whether that is subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic, or ballistic.
jojobas 2y ago
Because if the rounds don't fly down field they'll fly back. Shock damage from firing a gun might be bad, damage from incoming shells is much worse.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  While that is true, you have years and years to get the proper PPE in the artillery before you ever need to lob shells.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  When is the last time the US faced an artillery force with similar range capabilities though? Desert Storm?

munificent 2y ago

This would also explain why accounts of "shell shock" and PTSD rose so dramatically during WWI but were less common in prior wars where explosions were less common.

BurningFrog 2y ago
I always wonder if it occurred more, or, in a modern society, was recorded more. Just thinking aloud.
- munificent 2y ago
  I think it's probably both. I think the negative consequences of being in a war increased significantly after the invention of artillery, but also psychological stuff was under-reported the farther you go back in time.
joegibbs 2y ago
That's interesting that at the time, in WW1, it was assumed to be a physical injury to the brain caused by the shockwave of exploding artillery shells (hence the name). A few years later a consensus evolved that it's a psychological problem caused by the stress of combat, which was the prevailing opinion for about 100 years. And now it's looking like it might actually be a physical injury caused by shockwave damage to the brain.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  Shell shock was considered related to neurasthenia (weak nerves) which is the 18th century name for ME/CFS. TBI, ME/CFS and PTSD are highly correlated for what I believe are the same genetic predisposition plus an environmental trigger.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    ME/CFS can also be triggered by viruses. Epstein-Barr virus and SARS-CoV-2 both are suspected triggers.

Aeolun 2y ago

I swear I’ve read about something similar happening to athletes in bobsledding due to the vibration of the brain.

etc-hosts 2y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/sports/olympics/olympics-bobsled-suicide-brain-injuries.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/26/sports/olympics/olympics-... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/sports/olympics/bobsled-travis-bell-joe-sisson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/04/sports/olympics/bobsled-t...