"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."

They're being honest about the selection bias, but they're saying the absolute minimum threshold is 9%. That's high number one, and it's almost certainly much higher than nine percent because they only tested a few of the brains. 1300 is every former pro player that died. Not every one they tested.

> 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.

Boyoga!

Except for NFL players.

I'm honestly puzzled at the people coming out of the woodwork to troll this post. What is driving these people and their abandonment of reason?

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.

The problem is not so much the NFL IMO, it's the 4 years of collage + 1-4 years of high school before that. Means most people get hurt without any real benefit.

My research suggests that the minimum salary first hit $50k/year nominally in 1988 (which is $100k/year inflation-adjusted). The minimum salary has always been at least $60k/year inflation-adjusted since the first collective bargaining agreement in 1968.

But suffice it to say that, surprisingly, AFAICT for even exceptionally heavy occupational exposure (e.g. mining asbestos or removing asbestos insulation) lifetime risks of developing mesothelioma seem to be well below 10%, and possibly even below 1%.

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.

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.

I'll note that the "lifetime risk" numbers in the first response are almost certainly historical. I'd expect the studies he's looking to have been published around the time modern handling standards were developed, and they may have even contributed to their implementation. The symptoms also take decades to manifest, so I'd expect modern rates to be good indicators of the safety of the industry circa 20-30 years ago and nearly useless for indicating modern standards. 50 years ago probably not, but 20 years is probably still good.

It's fine to inform someone of the risks. An informed society is better than a society that doesn't let you play football.

I could inform you that you'll die 1/6 times you play russian roulette, but that doesn't mean that it should be ethically sound (or legal) to pay you to take that chance.

It may be unethical to play russian roulette, but is it still unethical to choose to play if you were paid $8.3 million (given that much worth in utility) first? Why not?

On the other hand, mining for minerals also has risk. Miners in Australia are highly compensated for it, getting paid over $100,000 per year.

What difference is there between the scenarios, assuming everyone involved is fully informed?

If I don't take the opportunity to work in Australian mines, will I have a reasonable opportunity to find work and provide a comfortable living for my family?

If that answer would change whether or not I'd work in a mine, I'd consider that the work may be exploitative of a regional work shortage. At that point someone might feel as though sacrificing their health is their only option, and an informed decision is much harder to make.

Like many ethical questions, it warrants discussion even though there may not be a "right" answer either way.

Nothing is unacceptable. Except faulty generalizations like the above.

An informed society is better than a society that doesn't let you play football.

Is anyone here saying we shouldn't "let" people play football?

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.

* 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.

Meanwhile there are plenty of dangerous occupations, truck drivers, for example, that are not deemed unacceptable and banned by authoritarian morality police.

> If everyone was a perfectly informed perfectly rational expectation maximizer we wouldn't have any of these problems

This standard is hardly necessary. All that is necessary is to have sufficient information to take responsibility for decisions you make and their consequences. That is known as agency. Of course it's different if your decisions affect others. I could certainly see holding certain people or organizations (like the NFL) responsible if there has been some kind of cover-up about the long-term effects of concussions. But that's far different from a crude authoritarian ban.

> 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.

In other words, you don't like football and you don't like the tradition, so you see no problem banning it. For you there's no downside, only upside.

No, banning is not necessary, at least not some kind of national ban issued from on high. It starts with education. Parents stop letting their children play Pop Warner. High schoolers in most of the country decide not to take the risks of playing football. HS football programs decline. College recruiting pools dry up, leading to a decline in the quality and popularity of College football. From there, it's anyone's guess how the NFL will survive.

Sure, it won't happen overnight. But I can assure you that the consequences of trying to issue an overnight ban of the most popular sport in the US would not be pretty.

I've seen plenty of articles headlined with something along the line of "should my kid play football?" If you knew your kid would have a 10% chance of developing CTE by playing the sport... well, I would think many parents would pause and reconsider. Certainly I would.

It's still a free country. Football is nowhere near the state of being "banned" or anything close to that. Plenty of other sports with probable worse concussion issues are also popular (see: MMA)

American football's huge prominence merely puts a bigger spotlight on this issue. In my opinion, the most likely outcome is equipment and/or rules changes. American football has changed rules and/or mandated equipment in the name of safety before.

That concept is just marketing or propaganda, depending on who is pushing it.

Also, let's not forget that there's accusations of a cover up by the NFL.

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.

It doesn't actually contribute to the discussion, it just derails it. "free country" is too vague to be meaningful; we have our freedoms curtailed in big and small ways all day every day. Wanna test this? Go ignore traffic lights. Go walk into someone else's house. Traffic laws and property rights are acceptable constraints on freedom, but they are still constraints on freedom.

Please, if you're going to contribute, make it a useful contribution.

You did not quote my post in its entirety. Before the saying anything about the US being a free country, I asked a pointed, important question that the parent had left undefined. The OP glibly asserted that this was "unacceptable." I asked: "unacceptable to whom?" The glib question about US being a free country was rhetorical and intended to provide some context for interpreting the first, more important question.

In retrospect, I probably should have left it off, given that only one of six responses even attempted to address the more important question. It's no surprise that soundwave106's comment is far and away the most thoughtful and interesting response. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851330.) I intended the 1st question to be literal and the 2nd question to be rhetorical. Instead everyone appears to have read the 2nd question to be literal and the 1st one to be rhetorical.

For a more detailed version of my own thoughts on the matter, feel free to review this follow-up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851549

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?