9 ms·
Artillery crew members who fired thousands of rounds in combat came home plagued by hallucinations and psychosis Could this problem also be affecting civilian
by jrmg 2y ago
Artillery crew members who fired thousands of rounds in combat came home plagued by hallucinations and psychosis
Could this problem also be affecting civilian gun enthusiasts? Or is the order of magnitude of the exposure just wildly lower compared to the military, even in the most enthusiastic?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- User23 2y agoThe difference between small arms and artillery is absolutely enormous. Handguns and rifles make loud popping noises. Exploding artillery shells are concussive bombs that produce brain rattling blasts.
- djmips 2y agoNavy Seals aren't firing artillery. The article says the Seals brains were damaged by their own weapons which I assume to be rifles but maybe I'm wrong.
- serf 2y agothey're talking about blasts from open-air combustion shoulder mounted anti-tank weapons.. very nearly artillery, and very loud.[0] . The article linked is the one mentioned in the parent article. one of the major problems with such weapons is that although the support crew can shield themselves, often the firing soldier cannot due to operation of the weapon. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/us/military-brain-injury-rocket-launcher.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/us/military-brain-injury-...
- mcmcmc 2y agoSEALs and other special forces use a lot of heavy weaponry and explosives in addition to small arms like rifles and sidearms. Think door breaching charges, grenades, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns.
- WalterBright 2y agoIn WW1, they called it "shell shock" for soldiers incapacitated without obvious injury. In WW2 it was called "battle fatigue", and now TBI. It seems the WW1 doctors got it right the first time.
- mikl 2y agoAlso, artillery has gotten bigger and boomier since then. If it was bad then, it’s likely worse now.
- throwawayffffas 2y agoArtillery has actually gotten smaller. Propellant charges have gotten "boomier" high explosive instead of smokeless propellants hence the traumatic brain injuries on the teams firing them.
- dboreham 2y agoHmm. Wasn't WWI "peak artillery"? We use 155mm and rockets now, right?
- justin66 2y agoTrue, but we've got better protective equipment as well.
- Dylan16807 2y agoWhat? Shell shock is PTSD. The doctors were concerned about concussive trauma but investigated and ruled it out as the cause. The concern itself was right to have, but I don't think the concern has ever gone away. So I don't characterize that as very "right the first time".
- WalterBright 2y agoThey were right as to the cause.
- 2y ago
- runamuck 2y agoCivilian gun enthusiasts don't shoot at bad guys, just paper targets.
- op00to 2y agoso then let's outlaw live ammunition, and replace all firearms with laser tag.
- willcipriano 2y agoWhy not outlaw all violence? Replace it with hugs.
- smogcutter 2y agoGo try some violence and get back to us.
- willcipriano 2y agoYou try gun violence first. * to quit with the games, relatively moderm firearms are 1700-1800's tech, with things like 3D printing banning them is as nonsensical as banning alcohol. Its just too easy to make.
- mathsmath 2y agoI think it depends on the shockwave. Maybe someone can math it out, but it’s like the sound leaf blower makes vs standing right next to a jet engine. I have never seen a shockwave on the ground behind a “normal” firearm, but it seems commonplace with artillery.
- DaoVeles 2y agoThe question is if there is a cumulative effect from the smaller shock waves or if there is a threshold that needs to be exceeded to cause issues.
- jack_riminton 2y agoEx artillery officer here, the shockwaves from firing artillery can be so powerful they can knock you off your feet if you're standing in the wrong place at the wrong time and caught unawares
- NotYourLawyer 2y agoYou can definitely see the shock wave from a .50 cal with a muzzle brake.
- Aurornis 2y agoArtillery is orders of magnitude more powerful than guns. Doing something is a stressful situation (combat zone) is infinitely more likely to lead to stress-related disorders than doing it in a safe, controlled environment (shooting range)
- tomComb 2y agoBut this isn’t about stress related disorders.
- worik 2y ago> But this isn’t about stress related disorders. No? > came home plagued by hallucinations and psychosis
- cush 2y agoI think they meant that the stress was caused by the TBIs from the mortar shockwaves, not by what they experienced otherwise
- tsimionescu 2y agoThe whole article is about how brain damage caused their hallucinations and psychosis, instead of it being caused by stress disorders as is more commonly believed. The brain damage itself was likely caused by the shock waves from explosive shells they were firing.
- Bjorkbat 2y agoI used to shoot competitively. We always wore ear protection. Even without it though, I would imagine there's a huge difference between an artillery shell and a .45 round.
- serf 2y agoalthough I agree that there are worlds of difference between small arms and artillery, I would like to point out that ear protection.. protects your ears. there is no good way to protect from concussive blasts aside from avoidance and shelter. fwiw most DoD studies have found that concussive blasts that seem to be damaging to personnel start at around the AT4/Carl Gustaf range of large shoulder-fired almost-artillery -- understandably since they're large and mostly open-air combustion driven.[0] [0]: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/05/01/shoulder-fired-weapons-can-cause-traumatic-brain-injuries-study-finds/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/05/01/...
- midjji 2y agoA .45 gunshot feels like a sound, and with hearing protections at a few meters you hear it but cant feel it in the slightest. You feel it in your hand but not further. Artillery is more similar to how it feels standing next to gigantic speakers at a concert, even with hearing protections you feel it throughout your entire body, except sharper.
- p51-remorse 2y agoIf you ever get the chance, go shoot some small caliber weapons. I think everyone should at some point to have a baseline in their head for what guns are. Plus, I think it’d be good for people to know you can become really hard to hit by all but the best shooters by… walking away slowly in a zigzag. Near impossible if you run. And then if you have a chance to be around some small artillery, do that too. It’s hard to describe the difference. (“You” here is used to address HN in general, not you personally)
- jrflowers 2y ago“Can you sustain brain damage by being exposed to a smaller amount of concussive force?” “Great question, did you know if you zig and zag you become impervious to bullet :)”
- ds_opseeker 2y agoBit of a difference between "hard to hit" and "impervious"
- jrflowers 2y agoYou take 0 damage from 100% of the bullets you zig
- zaptrem 2y agoI interpreted it as “there’s such a big difference between artillery and a handgun you clearly have never been around an actual gun being fired before” Still snarky, but there is a point.
- jrflowers 2y agoHow does saying “you should expose yourself to both things if you possibly can” express that there is a difference between the two? I suppose I can imagine that GP said that you can feel the difference between levels of brain damage incurred (they did not), but even if that were the case then why would you encourage someone to expose themselves to artillery if you thought the damage was more than zero? “The damage from both is different but also zero if you zig zag check mate 8-)”
- mlindner 2y agoGuns don't make shockwaves that damage your brain. Damage your hearing without ear protection, sure, but they're not sending shockwaves through your skull.
- djmips 2y agoAnd how do you know that?
- magicalhippo 2y agoI'm into sports shooting, and during winter our club has an indoor range that used to be an old bunker. So we're in this 25 foot by 60 foot concrete tunnel, that's about 8 feet tall at most. Not a giant cavern by any means. And closed doors, so just (forced) ventilation open to the outside. I've shot .357 magnum and shotguns in there. It's loud, yes. I wear ear plugs and ear muffs when doing that. But not by any means do they rattle my brain, and I can't imagine it's anything close to what you see around an artillery when firing. I mean look at the ground towards the camera in this[1] shot, clearly a powerful shock wave going out in all directions. [1]: https://youtu.be/Ny0h_G3VkhE?t=77 https://youtu.be/Ny0h_G3VkhE?t=77
- financltravsty 2y agoAn interesting thought popped off in my head: what if it does, and the crowd that leans heavily into enthusiast firearm usage is giving themselves micro-TBIs -- could that over the years create certain changes in personality and psychological workings that lead to certain, similar outcomes? E.g. could it be correlated with political affiliation? Don't read into it too much, though. This isn't snark or passive aggression, just genuine interest.
- magicalhippo 2y agoThe thing I suspect will prevent this from being an issue for sports shooters is that I'm not sure the energy in typical sport shooting calibers is enough to induce micro-TBIs. Sports shooters who shoot larger calibers, ie a 7.62 NATO or higher in terms of sound energy, are typically shooting relatively few rounds at a time. Those who shoot a lot of rounds typically shoot smaller calibers. Now, I think you might have a point when it comes to competitive practical/dynamic shooters[1], who shoot open division with hot .40 super loads or similar. Especially those, like in my club, who train a lot in indoor ranges. However these would make up a relatively small percentage of the overall recreational shooters out there I imagine. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_shooting
- BooneJS 2y agoIt’s not just the orders of magnitude difference in number of rounds fired; it’s the size and power of the rounds. SEALs don’t shoot soda cans with .22 rifles.
- AnarchismIsCool 2y agoProbably not unless you like .50 SBRs at indoor ranges, but always shoot suppressed just to be safe
- throwawayffffas 2y agoUnlikely, handguns produce significantly smaller shockwaves. Additionally the problems described in the article are a relatively new phenomenon related to the introduction of high explosive propellant cartridges, which small arms don't use. Exposure to lead is a much larger risk for gun enthusiasts from my point of view.
- _the_inflator 2y agoKeep in mind that this is a new phenomenon, which is bound to new military technology. It reminds me of the other side, the receiving end: shell shock in WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_shock I think the key here is to explore all options, not limiting yourself to the obvious. Steel Industry: In the steel mills people reported similarities 100-60 years ago. I remember talking to workers and their problems after being exposed to huge mechanical machines that form steel. Usually they are extremely loud, feel like a permanent earthquake, dusty and toxic air, hot temperatures and high risk for life threatening events. I see some similarities here between steel worker’s mental impact and military. It is fair to say that some conditions are not really helping you as an individual “unlocking your full potential”. Some conditions are simply very detrimental to your health.
- Spooky23 2y agoUnlikely, but… Small arms enthusiasts are often not great with hearing protection. As hearing declines, men especially tend to be less proactive in seeking care, mostly hearing aids. Why does this matter? Hearing loss is often a causative factor with depression, social isolation, anxiety and early onset dementia. Fear and anxiety drive a lot of the behavior that gun merchants leverage to sell guns. It’s a vicious cycle.
- beAbU 2y agoI've been surrounded by guns most of my life, going out to the shooting range at least once a month, sometimes more. Range days are busy, with sometimes dozens of people shooting on the line at the same time. The range is open air. I have some hearing damage (which I actually think is from somewhere else - we've always been anal about protection). Other than that, no other issues to report with myself nor my family/friends who participated with me in this hobby. Small calibre gunfire does not have a big enough shock/impact to really affect bystanders. Interestingly, I dislike shooting in an indoor range, because so much of the shot is radiated back to the shooter and bystanders. Where in an open air range that impact goes up in the air and away. Risk of lead exposure is very real though. A friend almost passed away due to too much shooting in an indoor range with poor ventilation. After some serious negative personality changes and other related symptoms he was finally diagnosed with nearly acute lead poisoning. Lead bullets basically vapourised when they hit the backstop, so the dust that's kicked up is very nasty.
- jajko 2y agoIts the back of the bullet that is vaporizing from the start from the explosion and hot gases (since it has very low melting/vaporizing point), and then second, smaller spike is when hitting hard surfaces and melting instantly into 100s of pieces (if you watch any slow-mo impact of a lead bullet they mostly don't vaporize, just melt and fly parallel to surface being hit). There is safe ammunition these days, but it costs more. Swiss make their military ammo lead-free (they have cca same ammo as US/NATO but bullets are most effective with different barrel twist compared to NATO ones, I think 1:7 vs 1:10), but both can fire each other's rounds safely. Safe ammo is essentially just back of the bullet covering lead core (if present at all), but for some reason most manufacturers don't do it by default. Some stuff doesn't have lead core at all, but then desired weight needs to be achieved via other substances and is priced accordingly.
- hollerith 2y ago>Swiss make their military ammo lead-free The US military has been switching to lead-free ammo, too, starting about 10 years ago.
- 2y ago
- jrflowers 2y agoUnsolicited tacticlol advice aside, I would say that the risks would vary dramatically between individuals. If one’s mental model of gun users is “firing a derringer into a pillow or operating heavy artillery” then the answer to your question would be “no”. However I’ve personally met a gun enthusiast that collected elephant guns [1] and shot barrels filled with tannerite [2] for fun. He was also… not all there. So who knows? ¯\_(ツ)_/ As an aside I entreat everyone not to entertain confident proclamations about secondary damage from weapons from someone that claims that they can avoid primary damage (bullets) by the proper tactical battlefield execution of a Sesame Street dance. [3][4] 1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun 2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannerite 3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40852404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40852404 4 https://youtu.be/LwyaMOCGEL0 https://youtu.be/LwyaMOCGEL0