OK, gotta ask this one.

  • Thread starter Trudi Marrapodi
  • Start date



On 10 Jun 2004 14:37:43 -0700, [email protected] (blah) mumbled
incoherently:

>[email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>Now, I don't know how much protection the helmet provided
>> or if my injury would have been worse without the helmet,
>> but I am glad I had it on.
>>
>> **** Durbin Tallahassee
>
>Over here in Australia it's illegal not to wear
>helmets. Civil liberty issues aside, I've never really
>understood why you wouldn't. I've devised a test for
>seeing if they work:
>
>Have a friend (or enemy, it doesn't matter) hit you, with a
>bat, on the head with moderate to hard force. Try it twice;
>once with the helmet then once without. It's important not
>to do it in reverse order. When you wake after the second
>hit, you can compare the relative value of wearing the
>helmet as opposed to not.
>
>Cheers
>
>PS. I'm aware that a cycling accident is a lot more
> complicated than this, but I'd rather hit the road (pun
> not intended) with it on. Oh yeah, feel free to use
> this test to demonstrate to the next pickup driving
> nutbags you see...

Uh oh. My helmet-thread alarm needle just went off
the paper. <Ducking>

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to support ef-
forts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,"
-- 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till
ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest,
make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
R: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time
or the wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your
head (and most people know know how to roll into a fall....)

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > - Now, without moving your feet, start to lean/tilt
> > forward. You'll
> likely
> > get off balance soon, but keep your hands at your sides
> > and resist the temptation to stop tilting forward or to
> > put your hands out to stop your fall.
>
> You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
>
> Pete
 
The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a bike
helmet is needed. I can only hope the response posts to mine
were being just friendly-sarcastic, because if they were
real, I'd say that more people should ride without helmets
and just let Darwin do his work ;-)

"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>
> > So the test I ask people to take is this....
> >
> > - Put your feet together, stand straight up, facing
> > forward, hands at
your
> > sides....
> >
> > - Close your eyes.
> >
> > - Put your head down, chin to your chest.
> >
> > - Now, without moving your feet, start to lean/tilt
> > forward. You'll
likely
> > get off balance soon, but keep your hands at your sides
> > and resist the temptation to stop tilting forward or to
> > put your hands out to stop your fall.
> >
> > - Keep leaning till your head impacts the cement.
> >
> > - That's from standing still. Now imagine being on a
> > bike, a foot or
so
> > higher off the ground, with any type of forward momentum
> > on top of that.
> >
> > No one I know has ever actually done this till they
> > fell, but it drives
the
> > point home.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Hmm. Seems that test applies VERY precisely to people
> walking.
>
> Have you convinced many pedestrians to wear helmets?
>
> (After all, their fatality numbers dwarf those of
> cyclists, so it sounds like a good idea!)
>
> --
> --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove
> rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the
> time or the wherewithall to get your hands up to protect
> your head

You will do this first of everything else, to seek how to
make good use of hands and arms, so you have enough time,
except (1) blind flight, since the mind is temporarily off,
watching the wrong movie, except (2), mainly, when losing
time because of hesitating too long to react seriously.

And, as it looks like, except (3) for the new variation of
kharma, representing the 'protected ones', which have the
delicious enlightenment in the right moment: oh! I am
protected!, thus a luxury of spending a very loooong
superfluos thought, so just to prevent, what could have been
done right elsewise. In short: seriously handicapped in
perception.

Should this be one of those crowns of upmost level of
insight in civilisation, when mainly the youth is trained
now, to refrain from keeping everyones' body-moves inline
with physical reality? Because, oh! everyone is protected!?
With the strong believe, after 'protection' could be found
as a label in a warehouse, there cannot be anything better?

Now, who dares to bring-up real statistics, will count hurt
necks and broken teeth in the neighbourhood of schools?
There should already be figures from observations about
difficulties of motoric co-ordination (now here we have as
well an artificially imposed handicap to learn how to react
appropriately). Who will count real use, of those and of
those, on the street and setting the relation right, of how
many, of those and of those, have been found being hurt?
Taking into account such imposed handicaps, like broken
capabilities for motoric co-ordination?

I am afraid, yes, there is protection envolved: for the
warehouse fetish. All those figures about protection,
propagated in favour of firm believe, quite for sure would
look different elsewise.

[and why to append that redundancy without thought:]
> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote
[..?]
 
Dave wrote:
>
> The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a bike
> helmet is needed.

But does it illustrate at all, how the devices available for
sale function as a bike helmet? If they did anything, we'd
be seeing a decrease in brain injury rates as helmet use
went up. The human head is already designed to protect the
brain when you fall down, and a foam hat doesn't seem to add
much protection.

Mitch.
 
Dave wrote:

> "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
>
> No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the time
> or the wherewithall to get your hands up to protect your
> head (and most people know know how to roll into a
> fall....)

Speaking of which, I *do* wear a helmet, and I've taken
plenty of falls, but the helmet's never come in handy.
During a fall, that is. It's been useful to ward off stray
branches while I'm still on my bike, but at spill time, I
either hit the ground ungracefully with hands and knees, or
I do spectacular full somersaults onto my back. If I
*really* cared for my bodily integrity, I'd wear knee pads,
elbow pads, and a flak vest. B{D>

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> --------
http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from
Greenwich Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak." -- Lin
Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.
 
Only thing I can say is from personal experience, I've
witnessed nasty crashes at speed (30+) as well as touring
paces where the helmet has come into play in preventing
severe injury. A member of my team recently was doing TT
training, and a SUV pulled into the bike lane and stopped
abruptly in front of him. He was going about 32mph, and went
right into the back, and had he not been wearing a helmet,
we'd have gone to his funeral. And being a racer, I've seen
plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds, where the
helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel
comfortable in saying, saved many a cracked skull. It's not
a perfect shield of course, but it helps....

Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not
there, you can't make judgements, and in fact, we don't even
know all of it because the police are still involved as are
the insurance companies, so the family is not allowed to
talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the helmet. Let's
face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what anyone
else thinks?

Dave

"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > The point is, it illustrates to anyone, how wearing a
> > bike helmet is
needed.
>
> But does it illustrate at all, how the devices available
> for sale function as a bike helmet? If they did anything,
> we'd be seeing a decrease in brain injury rates as helmet
> use went up. The human head is already designed to protect
> the brain when you fall down, and a foam hat doesn't seem
> to add much protection.
>
> Mitch.
 
Scott Eiler <[email protected]> writes:

> Dave wrote:
>
> > "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>You ride with your hands locked at your side, unmoving?
> >
> > No, but many times when you crash, you don't have the
> > time or the wherewithall to get your hands up to protect
> > your head (and most people know know how to roll into a
> > fall....)
>
> Speaking of which, I *do* wear a helmet, and I've taken
> plenty of falls, but the helmet's never come in handy.
> During a fall, that is.

I know someone who has a small bald patch on the top of
his head as the result of a fall without a helmet. He had
a bad headache and saw double for some time (a few hours
to a day or so - I forget the details). In his case the
crash was completely unexpected. He was riding at a
moderate speed on a college campus. I forget if he
collided with another bike or not.

BTW, probably most people don't know how to roll into a
fall, even if racers typically do.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Dave wrote:
>
> being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and
> low) speeds, where the helment took a huge part of the
> impact and I feel comfortable in saying, saved many a
> cracked skull.

How in the world do you know that? Have you ever seen a
fractured skull from a bike crash? The only one I have
experience with was on an 80 year old woman, who was wearing
a Bell Tourlight (hard shell, no longer available) when her
tandem tipped over sideways after a dog took out the front
wheel. I don't blame the helmet, I suspect her skull
shattered because it was old and thin. I'd imagine the docs
were glad the helmet kept the dirt and gravel out of her
head. I never saw her or her husband at club rides after
that, I think they quit riding.

I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody
wore helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood everywhere
from a hole in my scalp, but no concussion or other brain
injury. If I had destroyed a helmet in that crash, I'm sure
you'd be claiming the helmet saved me from certain brain
injury or death.
 
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave" <[email protected]>
mumbled incoherently:

>Only thing I can say is from personal experience, I've
>witnessed nasty crashes at speed (30+) as well as touring
>paces where the helmet has come into play in preventing
>severe injury. A member of my team recently was doing TT
>training, and a SUV pulled into the bike lane and stopped
>abruptly in front of him. He was going about 32mph, and
>went right into the back, and had he not been wearing a
>helmet, we'd have gone to his funeral. And being a racer,
>I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and low) speeds, where
>the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel
>comfortable in saying, saved many a cracked skull. It's not
>a perfect shield of course, but it helps....
>
>Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not
>there, you can't make judgements, and in fact, we don't
>even know all of it because the police are still involved
>as are the insurance companies, so the family is not
>allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the
>helmet. Let's face it, better safe than sorry, and who
>cares what anyone else thinks?
>
>Dave

Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped
out on his bike, (wheel shimmy) slid across six
lanes of traffic, and hit his head on the far curb.
He told me about it, showing me his helmet which had
split in half. He complained about the scrapes he
received on his legs and arms as well as the loss of
paint off his racing bike, but there he was, talking
to me, no apparent damage to his head. Not even a
scrape. Years ago, I mentioned this in one of these
bike groups, and was attacked for weeks. They first
said the accident could not have happened. (Wrong,
as I proved.) Then they told me the helmet could not
have possibly saved him. Lastly, they threw all
sorts of statistics at me, intended to show that
bike helmets cannot possibly save someone from
injury.... but the fact remains, he is uninjured.
Hard to explain, but there it is. This group is just
not freindly to helmet wearers who claim injury
protection from them. I meant this just as a
freindly warning, but I see the jackals have already
begun to attack.

Cordially,

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to support ef-
forts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,"
-- 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till
ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest,
make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
R: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
"Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave"
> <[email protected]> mumbled incoherently:

> >Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not
> >there, you can't make judgements, and in fact, we don't
> >even know all of it because the police are still involved
> >as are the insurance companies, so the family is not
> >allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear the
> >helmet. Let's face it, better safe than sorry, and who
> >cares what anyone else thinks?

> Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped
> out on his bike, <snip> I meant this just as a
> freindly warning, but I see the jackals have already
> begun to attack.

I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets
provide some useful protection* for some riders (but not
claiming they would protect you from gross stupidity such as
riding the wrong way without lights at night and getting
into a head-on with an 18-wheeler traveling at 50 mph).

This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the
archives if you** want, but don't restart the argument.

Bill

* Defined as saving more over time in medical costs, time
lost from work, etc. than the helmet and periodic
replacements cost, and considering the differences in
annual mileage.

** "you" in the plural, impersonal sense addressing
random readers.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
So as long as there's no brain injury it's fine to not
bother with a helmet? Why do people here insist on putting
words into other people's mouths (posts) when it's not
stated in the post? Sheesh. All I said was that I've seen
nasty crashes that surely would have resulted in severe
headinjusry if not for a helment, okay?

I don't give a **** what you do. I'm not saying to ride with
an armor suit; just some extra protection for your head.
Seems like a pretty smart thing to do.

Tell ya what... Ride. Ride with one. Ride without one. I
don't give a ****. I just thought some people might benefit
from some sound advice to not bother what people think about
you wearing a helmet, and better safe than worry about what
they think.

"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> >
> > being a racer, I've seen plenty of crashes at high (and
> > low) speeds,
where
> > the helment took a huge part of the impact and I feel
> > comfortable in
saying,
> > saved many a cracked skull.
>
> How in the world do you know that? Have you ever seen a
> fractured skull from a bike crash? The only one I have
> experience with was on an 80 year old woman, who was
> wearing a Bell Tourlight (hard shell, no longer available)
> when her tandem tipped over sideways after a dog took out
> the front wheel. I don't blame the helmet, I suspect her
> skull shattered because it was old and thin. I'd imagine
> the docs were glad the helmet kept the dirt and gravel out
> of her head. I never saw her or her husband at club rides
> after that, I think they quit riding.
>
> I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody
> wore helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood
> everywhere from a hole in my scalp, but no concussion or
> other brain injury. If I had destroyed a helmet in that
> crash, I'm sure you'd be claiming the helmet saved me from
> certain brain injury or death.
 
Yeah; I knew there was a reason I ignored reading/posting on
around on newsgroups for a while; just remembered why...

Dave

"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 10:54:40 -0400, "Dave"
> > <[email protected]> mumbled incoherently:
>
> > >Please, no comments about the incident, if you were not
> > >there, you
can't
> > >make judgements, and in fact, we don't even know all of
> > >it because the police are still involved as are the
> > >insurance companies, so the family
is
> > >not allowed to talk about it much. Suffice to say, wear
> > >the helmet.
Let's
> > >face it, better safe than sorry, and who cares what
> > >anyone else thinks?
>
> > Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped out on
> > his bike, <snip> I meant this just as a freindly
> > warning, but I see the jackals have already begun to
> > attack.
>
> I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets
> provide some useful protection* for some riders (but not
> claiming they would protect you from gross stupidity
> such as riding the wrong way without lights at night and
> getting into a head-on with an 18-wheeler traveling at
> 50 mph).
>
> This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the
> archives if you** want, but don't restart the argument.
>
> Bill
>
> * Defined as saving more over time in medical costs, time
> lost from work, etc. than the helmet and periodic
> replacements cost, and considering the differences in
> annual mileage.
>
> ** "you" in the plural, impersonal sense addressing random
> readers.
>
> --
> My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Dave wrote:
> Sheesh. All I said was that I've seen nasty crashes that
> surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry if not
> for a helment, okay?

No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody else
to say they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely would have
resulted in severe head injury if the rider had been wearing
a helmet. Get it yet? Mitch.
 
Mitch Haley <[email protected]> writes:

> Dave wrote:
> > Sheesh. All I said was that I've seen nasty crashes
> > that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry
> > if not for a helment, okay?
>
> No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody
> else to say they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely
> would have resulted in severe head injury if the rider had
> been wearing a helmet. Get it yet? Mitch.

Yeah. Any indication, whether anecdotal or a result of a
carefully run research project, that shows a non-zero
benefit for helmet use *must* be ignored, with the authors
discredited and anyone mentioning the results attacked.
Standard modus operandi.

BTW, some of these guys *did* at one point claim that
helmets cause injuries by "sticking" to the pavement
(unlike a head where the skin simply abrades) or increasing
one's moment of inertia so one would be more likely to hit
one's head in a fall. None of the anti-helmet people stated
that this argument was "not OK" at the time it was being
trotted out.

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." wrote:
> Yeah. Any indication, whether anecdotal or a result of a
> carefully run research project, that shows a non-zero
> benefit for helmet use *must* be ignored, with the authors
> discredited and anyone mentioning the results attacked.
> Standard modus operandi.

Name calling will get you nowhere, Bill. Besides, I'm not
the one who got in a childish tiff with a professional
researcher on this board a few years ago, that was you.

Mitch.
 
All I get from you is that you appear to be the kind of
person who likes to argue for, what it seems,
argument's sake.

And BTW, read what I wrote, nitwit. *I* have seen crashes,
that certainly would have resulted in severe head injury if
not for the helmet. So,

Unless you were there too, shut up and don't tell me what I
saw, or what my opinion should be.

Get it?

"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
> > Sheesh. All I said was that I've seen nasty crashes
> > that surely would have resulted in severe headinjusry
if
> > not for a helment, okay?
>
> No, that's not okay. Nor would it be okay for somebody
> else to say they'd seen unhelmeted crashes that surely
> would have resulted in severe head injury if the rider had
> been wearing a helmet. Get it yet? Mitch.
 
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 23:14:56 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
mumbled incoherently:

>> Dave, some advice: I have a good friend who wiped
>> out on his bike, <snip> I meant this just as a
>> freindly warning, but I see the jackals have already
>> begun to attack.
>
>I got lots of static for simply suggesting that helmets
>provide some useful protection* for some riders (but not
>claiming they would protect you from gross stupidity such
>as riding the wrong way without lights at night and getting
>into a head-on with an 18-wheeler traveling at 50 mph).
>
>This whole topic was beaten to death years ago. Go to the
>archives if you** want, but don't restart the argument.

That's good advice.

Ken (NY) Chairman, Department Of Redundancy Department®
___________________________________
email: http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm

"It should be the policy of the United States to support ef-
forts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime,"
-- 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
signed by Bill Clinton

When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till
ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest,
make fast the fetters.
http://www.truthnet.org/islam/Quran/Rodwell/47/

Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
R: Telling your parents you’re gay.

spammers can send mail to [email protected]
 
Dave wrote:
>
> And BTW, read what I wrote, nitwit. *I* have seen crashes,
> that certainly would have resulted in severe head injury
> if not for the helmet. So,

And I asked you, in my original reply, if you'd ever seen a
crash of similar severity in which the rider was hatless and
did indeed suffer such injury. If you have seen several
helmeted and non-helmeted crashes and can coment on the
difference, I'd be glad to hear your observations. Barring
that, it appears that you are extrapolating from an
observation of helmet use to a prediction of helmet non-use
and calling it a certainty. Name-calling does not make
circular logic valid, and you've not yet given evidence here
that you do know what you are talking about, just insisting
that anybody who doesn't take your word for it is a nitwit.
It is as if I insulted your religious beliefs. (maybe I
have, for all I know)

If all the helmet-saved-a-life stories were true, bicycle
deaths in the non-helmet era would have rivaled automotive
deaths. I know more people who believed a helmet saved their
lives than I know who died in cars, I suspect most of us do.
For the record, the only person I ever met who later died on
a bicycle was right-hooked by a semi truck. The trailer ran
right over her, making a human pancake. I don't know if she
had a helmet, nor do I care. Bicycle brain injuries are so
rare, and shattered helmets so common, that I'm not willing
to use the latter as evidence of the former. Mitch.
 
...stuff deleted
>
> I had a good hard crash in the 1970s when virtually nobody
> wore helmets, tore some muscle in my neck, blood
> everywhere from a hole in my scalp, but no concussion or
> other brain injury. If I had destroyed a helmet in that
> crash, I'm sure you'd be claiming the helmet saved me from
> certain brain injury or death.

It is kind of disingenuous to deny that fractured
skulls occur.

I, for one, fractured mine when I was cycling down a steep
hill and the inexpensive bike I was riding began to wobble
uncontrollably (that is, beyond my control at the time). I
was 12 or 13 at the time. I had ridden at speed before, but
never on such a poorly assembled bike. With the experience
I have now, I probably would not have crashed. I hit the
brakes (coaster brakes) and they locked. My momentum took
me through the u-shaped handle bars (stingray type bicycle
on which I had little experience). I remember looking up at
the sky through the pedals (at least one foot was still on
them) when my head hit the ground. The resulting head
injury was likely to have been reduced by a helmet (I
landed on the back of the skull, doing 3/4 of a complete
flip), as it was a direct impact with little chance of any
rotational effect, the kind of blow for which the shell was
supposedly designed.

Still, the added padding might well have added to a
potential neck injury as it might well have pushed the head
further forward than it was designed to go. Had this
happened, the neck injury could well have been fatal. A
helmet may just as well have been effective in this
accident. As you point out, it is impossible to know. It is
obvious that helmets may well protect from certain types of
injuries, just as shoulder pads and helmets help protect
football players. There is no doubt, however, as with
football helmets, that they make some injuries worse. Risk
compensation, a pet idea of one anti-helmet advocate, is
also a factor to be considered (football players use their
heads to drive into traffic, sometimes causing severe
injuries to one player or both, something they would not
likely do without the imagined protection a helmet
provides).

Some will not look at the issue with any degree of logic,
and this is ludicrous. Helmets are, IMO, a waste of money,
for the most part. They do protect from some injuries and
potentially cause others, which may well be more severe.
The statistics suggest that they do reduce head injuries,
so in that they are somewhat successful. The statistics
also suggest that they do not improve odds of survival,
strongly suggesting that there are many categories of
accidents, such as:

- those in which cyclists cannot survive, regardless of
protective gear
- those in which helmets mitigated injury and which are not
reported, as a result
- those in which helmets would have worked had the cyclist
not assumed an attitude of invulnerability
- those in which helmets change the injury site from head to
the neck (and which are thus, not reported, as head
injuries and are ignored by the statistic gatherers)

And I am certain that if I spent more time on this, I could
expand the list. In truth, it doesn't matter. None of the
reports I've read even come close to knowing the actual
statistics on anything except total deaths. Most of those
fit in the not-survivable category and are, statistically,
meaningless (though the stats people don't think so).

So, give it a rest. We cannot know this stuff, despite how
certain you are of your beliefs.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back