Quote Originally Posted by Zool View Post
I suppose it's like people who smoke cigarettes until they are 100 and never get lung cancer. Doesn't mean that cigarettes don't cause cancer, just that it doesn't always cause cancer.
As you indicate with comparing pro college and high school players, in any case where exposure may correlate with likelihood of developing a disease/syndrome/condition, the amount of exposure/number of exposures that lead to a significant chance of developing the syndrome are what matter. That's the question. Are those getting a few concussion or those getting certain levels of sub-concussion traumas at risk like someone who smoked six cigarettes their entire life, or are they closer to the 2 pack a day smoker. The data so far suggest it's closer to the former than the latter.

What seems to be happening in the poplar media is that former football players who suffer from the worst symptoms are being highlighted. Much like the asbestos stories. No doubt that sustained exposure and/or increased susceptibility to asbestos results in mesothelioma, but when the extreme cases are presented as the norm for exposure, it leaves the appearance that any exposure is ultimately deadly. Still, I think cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure is the kind of comparison that those who want to eliminate football favor. If football can be considered a preventable disease, people will eventually stop using it.

The anti-football types (for whatever motivation) were very smart to go after the bubble-wrap moms - the contemporary helicopter mom (and many dads) is terrified of anything that might possibly hurt their children, so in 50 years we'll have a nation of soccer players, or VR sports and kids on low-impact exercise regimens. I will be happy to be dead for that.

What football advocates need to do is maybe get football participation likened to cell phone use, alcohol consumption or pot smoking...