WSJ
April 30, 2018

WASHINGTON—Thousands of U.S. troops are likely suffering traumatic brain injury not just from battlefield explosions but from repeated exposure to trauma while training on their own weapons, according to a new study.

Service members, even those who may not have seen combat but specialize in using high explosives or weapons such as rocket launchers, could have lasting brain damage from the pounding on their necks and heads, researchers at the Center for a New American Security said in a report released Monday. The defense think tank is a nonprofit organization funded by the federal government and public- and private-sector donors.

“It’s analogous to people getting hits to the head in sports, playing football or boxing,” said Paul Scharre, a senior fellow at the center. “This is not really well understood, the primary blast effects on the brain. Exactly how it affects the brain is unclear, but the fact that it is having some kind of negative effect is now being shown.”

Shoulder-fired rockets and rocket-propelled grenades don’t shoot away with a “whoosh” as they are sometimes portrayed in movies. They go off with an ear-ringing boom that troops sometimes liken to getting punched in the side of the head. The Defense Department has long acknowledged this and has limits on the number of rounds troops can fire at any given time. But the Pentagon didn’t take a hard look at the harm these blasts could cause until recently.

The Department of Defense started diagnosing and tracking traumatic brain injury just before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began. TBI has become one of the signature injuries of the current generation of troops, with some 380,000 personnel affected by it, according to the Defense Department.

The military sporadically has used blast gauges, small devices worn on troops’ helmets or body armor, to better understand the effects of explosions in combat. Researchers began to notice that these gauges weren’t just registering substantial blasts in combat, but in training, too.

Researchers drew on Defense Department data, blast-effect research on animal subjects and computer modeling to reach their conclusions, noting that military officials have expressed concern about the issue and say it needs further examination. Researchers and officials say available data is insufficient.

Using weapons such as shoulder-fired rockets in combat and training is a necessity, Mr. Scharre said, but the military can do more to manage the risks. One of the reports’ recommendations is for the military to track when troops fire the weapons in training, partly so troops can be treated for injuries later and compensated for disabilities.

“They would have a record of times of exposure, how frequent, the amount of ammunition shot and over what time period,” said Lauren Fish, co-author of the report.

The military can also do more to develop helmets that protect troops from the blast wave that splits the air in an explosion, researchers said. Those helmets could include jaw protection and visors to resemble a motorcycle-racing helmet, which may not be practical in combat but would be useful in training environments.

Representatives from a number of veterans’ advocacy organizations, including those who help vets with disability claims, said they haven’t noticed vets complaining about the problem or making claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs for compensation in the matter.

That could be because there isn’t a major problem, or because vets don’t yet realize the problem. It took time for those affected to recognize the long-term effects of Agent Orange on their health.

VA spokesman Curt Cashour said the department hasn’t undertaken the time-consuming process of reviewing individual cases to determine whether vets are claiming harm from repeated exposure in training. He said the VA and the Pentagon “are studying the effects of mild TBI that can be caused by blast exposure in both active-duty service members and veterans,” but those enrolled in current research don’t show effects from repeated exposure to their own weapons.

The Defense Department didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Link

Thank you for posting this article. The diagnosis of traumatic brain injury is particularly difficult and involves extensive neuropsychological testing for a credible result. MRIs and such merely show structural changes in the brain and do not correlate well with functional limitations.

The epidemic of current vets with TBI is largely due to the exposure to IEDs. Even if you are not killed by the blast, the concussive wave causes damage to the brain.

This explains why the GI's who returned from WW II were not able to go to college or accomplish anything in their careers.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Thank you for posting this article. The diagnosis of traumatic brain injury is particularly difficult and involves extensive neuropsychological testing for a credible result. MRIs and such merely show structural changes in the brain and do not correlate well with functional limitations.

The epidemic of current vets with TBI is largely due to the exposure to IEDs. Even if you are not killed by the blast, the concussive wave causes damage to the brain.

Functional MRI's do show metabolic activity in the brain and show changes due to TBI, but they are expensive.

According to an Army Col. that managed a program on TBI, 80% of TBI incidents occur in garrison, not combat. I don't have a copy of his presentation to share with you, unfortunately.

quote:

computer modeling

When I see the above words as part of a study my training tells me the study is likely to be B.S.

My high school English teacher was an Artillery Captain during WW2, he did have bouts of sudden, uncontrolled flinching.

So, in his regards... yes, using your weapon can cause damage, doesn't mean it makes you a useless jellyfish. However, it can and does cause damage.

As well as being on the receiving end of things as well, seems they have just discovered "TBI".

It been aropund a while, is real and can be incapacitating and debilitating.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

computer modeling

When I see the above words as part of a study my training tells me the study is likely to be B.S.

[thread drift] Out of legit curiosity, what is your training that makes you distrust computer modeling (which is used in a bazillion different ways in modern research and tech)? Or is it one particular type of modeling?

Brain injury is no joke, but not having a superior fighting force is 10 X worse.

These weasels constantly trying to make the case for bubble wrapping everyone need to be grabbed by the lapels and shook - hard.

quote:

Brain injury is no joke, but not having a superior fighting force is 10 X worse.

No argument there. Hearing loss has been mitigated to some degree by technology. I recall plenty of film with the GIs having cigarette butts for ear protection.

I’ll bet Gunny is rolling over in his grave.

Oh for fuck's sake.

That's it - suppressors for all our troops !!!

I believe this is something that some good technology couldn't improve on. Put a buch of engineers and physicists in a room, and after they tell you it can't be done, tell them sorry it must be done, and you can't go home until you solve it.

Of course, the goal is eliminating morbidity and mortality in war.

quote:

Originally posted by Otto Pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:

quote:

computer modeling

When I see the above words as part of a study my training tells me the study is likely to be B.S.

[thread drift] Out of legit curiosity, what is your training that makes you distrust computer modeling (which is used in a bazillion different ways in modern research and tech)? Or is it one particular type of modeling?

Slight thread drift response: Started in the 70’s modeling ecosystems. Moved to water quality and nutrient cycling. Working for the state was not much fun and got into pharmacology and toxicology modeling the effects of drugs and toxins on humans and animals in the 80’s. Been working in drug development since the early 90’s.

The utility of modeling biological systems and health impacts is limited because we still do not understand many things very well. In contrast, doing an actual prospective study, properly designed, well controlled, statistically powered and competently executed will give you good data. Others then need to replicate the study and the results to show that the results are repeatable.

I basically go by this rule of thumb: “All models are wrong but some models can be useful”. I try to find the useful ones when appropriate.

Note that engineering type modeling, say airflow over a wing, are a lot more straight forward but can still throw bad results.

TBI is a problem and can be difficult to diagnose. Treatment options also remain limited across the entire spectrum of injury. I'd prefer to see DOD spending money conducting and repeating solid studies to make sure we understand the parameters of the problem. For example, what is the impact of the blast wave on various organelles and the time-course of those impacts? Then throw the necessary research and engineering resources into mitigating those impacts.

quote:

Originally posted by leavemebe:
For example, what is the impact of the blast wave on various organelles and the time-course of those impacts? Then throw the necessary research and engineering resources into mitigating those impacts.

Can you drop me an email at the address in my public profile? Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Brain injury is no joke, but not having a superior fighting force is 10 X worse.

No argument there. Hearing loss has been mitigated to some degree by technology. I recall plenty of film with the GIs having cigarette butts for ear protection.

Or .45ACP cartridges.

Regarding the OP: lack of weapons training likely causes premature death....

flashguy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: flashguy,