Graeme said:anonymous coward <[email hidden]> wrote
in :"]news:[email hidden]:
Quoted message said:A large proportion of kids with behavioural difficulties
had "insignificant" brain injuries when they're younger.
Undoubtedly true, but what you are talking about there is
*brain* injuries. I'm talking about a few bumps to the
head with no loss of consciousness or other effects other
than a sore head. The skull does a damned good job of
protecting the brain in the majority of falls (unless you
stick a helmet on it).
The brain is a different density from the fluid surrounding
it, so it can bump about in the skull, even when the skull
is uncompromised and there are no rotational forces.
Subdural haemorrhages don't always lead to any loss of
consciousness.
Quoted message said:However it could also be said that many kids without
behavioural difficulties had insignificant brain injuries.
Without a true analysis of a significant portion of the
population, which would be difficult (do you remember all
your bumps and scrapes as a kid?) then to imply some sort
of causal relationship is stretching the point a bit far.
I did have a fair few scrapes - including once being hit by
a several-kg piece of wood that fell on me from the rafters
in the garage. I also had one of those lethal chopper-style
bikes that tend to dump you on your head if you accelerate.
You're right in that I can't prove this one incident
permanently dented my academic prospects, but nor can you
prove that it didn't.
I know of some case-studies of people such as boxers,
footballers, roller-coaster riders... that link several
types of brain-trauma to relatively minor impacts - often
repeated. All I'm arguing is that it's silly to dismiss
bumps on the head as 'trivial' just because they didn't lead
to hospital.
Given that helmets may cause the sort of rotational injuries
implicated in many of the case-studies above, I'm not even
suggesting that they're the solution. I'd prefer to see less
choppers and more kiddie-style recumbents, instead.
AC
