Slashdot Mirror


Military Helmet Design Contributes To Brain Damage

BuzzSkyline writes "Improvements in helmets have helped modern soldiers survive bullets and blasts that would have killed them in past wars. But increasing numbers of soldiers are suffering long lasting brain damage from explosions, partly as a result of what appears to be a flaw in helmet designs. Although the blast itself may not accelerate the brain inside a soldier's head enough to cause injury, shockwaves that make it through the space between a helmet and a soldier's head can cause the skull to flex, leading to ripples in the skull that can create damaging pressures in the brain. Simulations that relied on 'code originally designed to simulate how a detonated weapon rattles a building or tank' could lead to new helmets that reduce the traumatic brain injuries that many soldiers suffer as a result of improvised explosive devices and other moderate-sized blasts. The research is due to be published in Physical Review Letters, but a pre-print of the entire article is currently available on the Physics ArXiv."

79 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. In other news... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Green military uniforms have also been observed to be a cause of brain damage, proportional to the number of stars on the uniform.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:In other news... by Starcub · · Score: 4, Funny

      A truely scientific study would measure the amount of brain damage a person had prior to entering the military and figure out how to discount brain damage accrued as a result of non-combat related factors associated with being in the military.

    2. Re:In other news... by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think that a scientific study for determining just how much military helmets actually contribute to brain damage when the soldier is exposed to an explosion would start by base-lining the brain conditions of 50 or so soldiers. Then, expose them all to the same explosion at the same stand-off orientation, half of them wearing helmets and half without. Then, re-test.

      If the guys without their helmets on come out behind the guys wearing helmets, we should re-title this, "Military Helmet Design Fails to Completely Prevent Brain Damage".

      Still, if they can model it up and do better, that sounds great.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:In other news... by evanbd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, observational studies are still scientific. There are plenty of hypotheses that can be tested without randomized controlled trials.

      You're not going to claim that if astronomers really wanted to be scientific, they would start their research by gathering up a bunch of hydrogen and piling it together in empty space and then watching what happens, are you?

      It's also entirely possible your test methodology would fail. The helmet could well be preventing acute injury resulting in death (shrapnel through the skull), but increasing the diffuse brain damage to other parts of the brain. However, the death due to acute injury would make the diffuse injury rate difficult to determine. Preventing death but causing brain damage is clearly an improvement, but it doesn't mean the helmet merely "failed to completely prevent" the brain damage, if the brain damage wouldn't have occurred without it.

      Sometimes science is hard. It's still science, though, even if your "ideal" test methodology is impractical.

    4. Re:In other news... by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here's the hitch: Service personnel are screened rather thoroughly for any potentially disqualifying medically significant incidents prior to being enlisted/commissioned. Almost any prior head trauma for which medical attention was sought would be a disqualifying factor, unless medical review showed (with a very high degree of certainty) no lasting impairment. As a result, while a few might slip through the cracks here and there, you're not going to find a significant number of personnel entering the service with prior brain damage. You might be surprised what sort of prior medical issues can disqualify someone from military service.

    5. Re:In other news... by Gilmoure · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I was underweight for my height (5'10" / 115 lbs). After spending 6 months trying to gain weight, was able to get a waver and go in to basic. 4 years later, had managed to gain 12 lbs. Out on the flight line, they called me Stickman. I was able to get in through small access holes (KC-135's) and fix stuff that would have taken an extra hour of work to remove larger pieces of skin. Got a decent amount of free booze for helping speed up repairs.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    6. Re:In other news... by karlwilson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Completely Prevent? Your brain is either damaged or it isn't. There really isn't an inbetween there.

    7. Re:In other news... by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that a scientific study for determining just how much military helmets actually contribute to brain damage when the soldier is exposed to an explosion would start by base-lining the brain conditions of 50 or so soldiers. Then, expose them all to the same explosion at the same stand-off orientation, half of them wearing helmets and half without. Then, re-test.

      In summary, run them thru the ASVAB after the incident and compare the before and after scores.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Services_Vocational_Aptitude_Battery

      The main problem is the ASVAB was redesigned in '02 and rescored in '04. If it were not for that, you could just run them thru the full battery of MEPS tests (Military Enlistment Processing Station).

      One problem is the soldiers not wearing helmets are more likely to be inside the vehicle, so you're measuring truck drivers vs infantry instead of helmet vs non-helmet. Even if you correct for MOS (military occupational specialty, essentially your military job title), that still does not compare wearing helmet vs not wearing helmet, but merely means comparing lazyness stupidity or likelihood of disobeying orders vs not.

      Running a real world experiment is complicated enough, that you're better off modeling brain hydrodynamics.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:In other news... by tonywong · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The should use orange goo.

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/08/31/0627236/The-Orange-Goo-That-Could-Save-Your-Laptop?art_pos=1

    9. Re:In other news... by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Informative

      You remind me of a friend I had in the Navy. Especially on submarines, it's not always a good thing to be able to fit into tight spaces, although I must say my buddy was well regarded among the crew. Ah, the things he could clean...

    10. Re:In other news... by palegray.net · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You wouldn't have qualified for submarine duty. I'm surprised you got cleared for Army service, unless (as I stated previously) there was no lasting impairment from the original injury. I assure you, an Army medical officer did review your medical history thoroughly prior to your acceptance into the service. The clearance part really doesn't have a lot to do with it, as about 99% of all personnel wearing a uniform are required to maintain at least a Secret clearance. As you're no doubt aware, higher clearances are reviewed with increased scrutiny.

      That said, I do thank you for your service, and I'm glad your didn't have lasting impairment from a prior injury that would have made service impossible for you. Far too many people would probably have attempted to skate out of doing their duty in a time of war by claiming unsuitability for service. The fact that you took your oath means something.

    11. Re:In other news... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think he's just complaining that "contributing" isn't really fair. It implies that brain damage would be less if no helmets were worn. This is obviously false, as the helmet prevents, not contributes to, brain damage.

      No, it isn't obviously false, because it is possible that a poor helmet design could increase brain damage in situations where without the helmet a lesser amount or no damage would occur.

      In fact based on their simulations they believe that this is the case, that the helmet can actually act as a funnel for the shockwave and increase the force felt by the skull. Based on the fact that it is a simulation, I'm sure they pile up enough "could"s or "possibly"s to make even the most nitpicky slashdotter happy, and thus the claim is completely fair.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:In other news... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know, observational studies are still scientific. There are plenty of hypotheses that can be tested without randomized controlled trials.

      Not really. Observational studies are generally shodily researched, poorly implemented, have less than 50 data points and no controls, and are sloshed around in a statistical package until the numbers come out. They're generally done by people who have come to a conclusion and now need to dress it up with a "scientific study".

      Which isn't to say that a good observational trial cannot take place. They just don't usually take place nowadays.

      Sometimes science is hard. It's still science, though, even if your "ideal" test methodology is impractical.

      And sometimes it is so hard some people just give up and fudge everything until they get what they want. The ideal test methodology is an honest to goodness experiment. You're either doing experiments, or you're gassing.

      Mythbusters can and do make a better effort at the scientific method than most modern, think tank funded studies. They put ideas to the test. Most studies simply data mine.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    13. Re:In other news... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      I'm glad I served; what have you done lately that's bigger than you?

      I salute your desire to serve something "bigger than you".

      However, I regret that this desire was twisted into service to the U.S. military, perpetrator of brutal and stupid foreign policy for generations. War was, and remains, a racket. I'm certainly not going to say that you have to be "brain damaged" to join -- many intelligent people fall for cons, after all.

      There are many ways to serve something "bigger than you" that do not involve supporting the military-industrial complex.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    14. Re:In other news... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Completely Prevent? Your brain is either damaged or it isn't. There really isn't an inbetween there.

      I would submit that there's a slight difference between 1) trouble moving your left hand and slurred speech, 2) unable to speak or move anything on the left side of your body, and 3) dead.

  2. The Shadow were right... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    War really does lead to some of our race's biggest advances.

    Although they did fail to consider the motivating potential of porn as well. Stupid Shadows...

    1. Re:The Shadow were right... by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's true, although porn leads to head-flexing as well.

      And dain bramage!

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:The Shadow were right... by gnick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      War really does lead to some of our race's biggest advances.

      Ants don't build a better anthill after you kick it over, they just build the same old design as before.

      Wrong race. Our race tends to come up with new and innovative ways of killing each other so that we can avoid being killed. And, if you want to stick to structures, Munich is a really interesting place to visit. They pretty much did rebuild the same human ant-hills after they got bombed to the ground. My understanding is that they built it about as close to the original lay-out as practical. But, even in that single very unusual example, they at least had the sense to completely revamp the infrastructure when they were putting it back together.

      If you're saying something too clever for me and it went over my head, I apologize for the ramble.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re:The Shadow were right... by Bake · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, actually just damage to your vision.

  3. Re:Scary by OnomatopoeiaSound · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it possible to design the helmets in such a way that prevents this? If not, it might be a necessary evil. I would rather run the risk of TBI than have my head shot off or something, honestly. It might just be a sad side effect of our need to have soldiers.

    --
    +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
  4. That's a bit harsh... by clone53421 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Helmets which "have helped modern soldiers survive bullets and blasts that would have killed them in past wars" are being accused of causing brain damage.

    I guess boxing gloves cause brain damage, too? Or maybe it's boxing that causes brain damage, and the gloves reduce the risk...

    Now, if they can make better helmets that reduce the risk of brain damage even further, props to them. That doesn't mean the current generation of helmets are "causing" brain damage.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:That's a bit harsh... by szo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's 'causing' the brain damage in a way that it prevents the solder from dying and thus hiding the symptoms of the brain damage :)

      --
      Red Leader Standing By!
    2. Re:That's a bit harsh... by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the gloves DO cause brain damage. It's nearly impossible to knock someone our bare handed with a blow to the temple, but easy as hell with gloves. The glove protects the hands, not the face. Notice that in college or olympic boxing they wear protective gear on their heads?

    3. Re:That's a bit harsh... by nschubach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if this may be the cause of "Gulf War Syndrome" we heard a lot about a few years back...

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    4. Re:That's a bit harsh... by iamhigh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's nearly impossible to knock someone our bare handed with a blow to the temple

      While perhaps this is true for the temple (and only the temple), I have seen way to many UFC fights to agree with the general idea of this statement. Catch the jaw just right with a solid blow and just about anyone will go down.

      The gloves lessen the blow, but they also make it possible to sustain a fight for 10 rounds... that is where the damage occurs. Getting knocked out isn't that big of a deal, it's the repeated blows that mess you up.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    5. Re:That's a bit harsh... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess boxing gloves cause brain damage, too? Or maybe it's boxing that causes brain damage, and the gloves reduce the risk...

      Boxing gloves cause more damage than they prevent.

      Boxing gloves are meant to protect a boxer's hands, not his opponent's head. They do that so well that a modern boxer can keep dishing out hurt long after an early 19th century bare-knuckles boxer would have had both hands incapacitated by his own blows.

      Which allows the boxer to do more damage to his opponent, thus increasing the risk of severe damage to both parties in a fight.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:That's a bit harsh... by Itninja · · Score: 4, Informative

      From TFA: "The helmet acts as a windscoop, so the pressure between the skull and helmet is larger than the blast wave by itself,.."

      With a direct gunshot to the head the head saves their lives, but with indirect shockwaves (i.e. an IED going off a few meters away) the helmets have been shown to increase the likelihood of a TBI.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    7. Re:That's a bit harsh... by gnick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe our helmets need a warning label: War may be hazardous to your health and has been known to cause such side effects as brain damage, PTSD, maiming, and death in many people during and after exposure.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    8. Re:That's a bit harsh... by gnick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The gloves lessen the blow, but they also make it possible to sustain a fight for 10 rounds... that is where the damage occurs. Getting knocked out isn't that big of a deal, it's the repeated blows that mess you up.

      You'd be surprised how many perfectly intelligent people fail to understand that. I watch a lot of UFC/MMA, but have never liked boxing. People who know I'm into UFC but don't really grasp the sport get confused when I tell them that I don't like boxing because it's too brutal. Our brains just weren't meant to be pummeled like that - Especially for those kind of durations. You often see UFC fighters get knocked loopy and wander off exhausted and beaten, but rarely do you see one truly punch-drunk.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    9. Re:That's a bit harsh... by megamerican · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wonder if this may be the cause of "Gulf War Syndrome" we heard a lot about a few years back...

      How would a shock to the head cause auto-immune diseases, which is what Gulf War Syndrome is?

      http://www.autoimmune.com/GWSGen.html

      "Gulf War Syndrome, or GWS, is the term which has been applied to the multi-symptom rheumatic disorder experienced by many veterans of the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war. A similar disorder appeared in 1990-1991-era personnel who were never deployed to the Persian Gulf theater of operations and also in other military personnel, including participants in the Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program, or AVIP, which was inaugurated in 1997. No data has ever suggested that the disorder experienced by the deployed 1990-1991 soldiers is different from the disorder experienced by the other groups of patients, but the other cases have not been considered to be cases of GWS.

      Squalene was found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in five lots of the AVIP anthrax vaccine. The discovery of serum anti-squalene antibodies and the development of a test to detect these antibodies has made it possible to see that links appear to exist between the contaminated AVIP vaccine lots, the illness experienced by post-1997 vaccine recipients, the illness experienced by non-deployed 1990-1991-era patients, and the illness in deployed 1990-1991-era patients that has been referred to as GWS."

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    10. Re:That's a bit harsh... by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unlikely. I have no idea if it's a real disease or not, or a popular misdiagnosis for a lot of other unrelated things. However, a great number of Gulf War Syndrome cases are with personnel who were not exposed to combat. Airmen on airbases, logistics folks, troops who never saw any real resistance in action, etc., etc.

      In other words, not a lot of soldiers were exposed to explosions at close range, and a great many more folks than that tiny cross section reported GWS.

      If it's real, it would have to be caused by something either pathogenic (unlikely, given that it seems the disease was not brought back home and spread to others) or environmental.

      Environmental causes seem more likely because of the sheer number of possible candidates.

      1. Burning oil wells, and the chemical muck that produced
      2. The first wide scale use of depleted uranium munitions
      3. Exposure to chemical weapons. Although chemical erapons were not deployed by Iraq during the war, some troops were exposed incidentally when storage facilities were destroyed.
      4. Chemical agents and vaccines used to protect against chemical and biological weapons

      All of these are suspect. There are studies saying yes, and no to most, if not all of these possible sources. Compound that with the real probability, that even if it's real, a great number of cases are probably folks who are scared and have some other disorder, who have convinced themselves otherwise, on top of the unscrupulous folks who are trying to turn this into a personal payday... we may never know if it's real, let alone what causes it if it is.

    11. Re:That's a bit harsh... by jake.tiger · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the gloves DO cause brain damage. It's nearly impossible to knock someone our bare handed with a blow to the temple, but easy as hell with gloves. The glove protects the hands, not the face. Notice that in college or olympic boxing they wear protective gear on their heads?

      Well, I have professional Muay Thai experience and I'd agree with the gloves causing brain damage. However, as far as the general consensus goes, thats because of the gloves flexing and causing vibrations in your head. As well as that you can get hit a lot in the head, I read that it's better to get a hard blow and get knocked out than lots of small ones. Interestingly, I know a lot of sparring partners who dont like sparring in head-gear because they often feel more dizzy afterwards than without. They attribute this to the gear giving even more padding for the vibrations. When it comes to it being nearly impossible to knock someone out bare-handed I gotta disagree. It's got more to do with where you hit, and how prepared the opponent is. As they say, it's the one you dont see that'll knock you out. Obviously there are several other factors as well. In MMA they wear minimal protection on the hands and people get knocked out just fine.

    12. Re:That's a bit harsh... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Helmets which "have helped modern soldiers survive bullets and blasts that would have killed them in past wars" are being accused of causing brain damage.

      Yes. Because they do. The net effect on survivability may be positive, but they still appear to cause specific kinds of brain injuries.

      Observing that this is the case and understanding it is the first step to designing helmets that have the same beneficial features as current helemts without while eliminating or mitigating the injury-causing features, thus further improving the net benefit.

      I guess boxing gloves cause brain damage, too?

      Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but that's irrelevant to the issue here.

      Now, if they can make better helmets that reduce the risk of brain damage even further, props to them. That doesn't mean the current generation of helmets are "causing" brain damage.

      No, what means that the current generation of helmets is causing brain damage is the specific evidence which shows that, in fact, designs like those currently used cause injuries that would not occur without the helmet. From TFS (emphasis added): "Although the blast itself may not accelerate the brain inside a soldier's head enough to cause injury, shockwaves that make it through the space between a helmet and a soldier's head can cause the skull to flex, leading to ripples in the skull that can create damaging pressures in the brain."

      TFA itself specifically notes how both the web-style suspension of the old PASGT helmets and the foam suspension of the newer ACH helmets contribute to brain injury by different mechanisms (PASGT by allowing the blast wave to "underwash" the helmet--which seems to be what TFS is referring--ACH, while avoiding that, by tightly coupling deformations of the helmet to the head.)

    13. Re:That's a bit harsh... by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It actually can. the M1A2 tank is coated with depleted uranium. If the tank gets hit(assuming the armor isnt penetrated, knocking the tank out)it can release particles of the depleted uranium. While there is not much radiation left in the uranium, enough exposure could possibly lead to a rise in cancer risk.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    14. Re:That's a bit harsh... by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, in UFC, when the fighter is knocked out, even for an instant, the fight is over. In boxing, they have a ten count that allows them to get back up and continue fighting.

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    15. Re:That's a bit harsh... by weiserfireman · · Score: 4, Informative
      The depleted uranium in a M1 Tank Armor is encased in steel. It does not "coat" the tank

      The crew is not going to be exposed to the uranium unless the armor gets penetrated. If the armor is penetrated the crew has bigger problems.

      Even then, it is not a big risk it will be penetrated, Of almost 5,000 M1 tanks built, only 10-12 tanks lost due to enemy action have had their armor penetrated. Only 7 soldiers have died in combat in an M1, 4 of those drowned when their tank collapsed a bridge.

      The crew members smoking or chewing tobacco is far greater cancer risk than the tank armor.

    16. Re:That's a bit harsh... by Radtastic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't like boxing because it's too brutal. Our brains just weren't meant to be pummeled like that

      Not to get pedantic, but I don't think our brains were designed to be pummeled UFC-style either.

      --
      You stereotypers are all the same...
    17. Re:That's a bit harsh... by budgenator · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uranium is an alpha emitter, outside the body it's radiation is harmless as the alpha particles have little penetration and can't effect living tissue, inside the body is the opposite, very hazardous because the radiation is completely absorbed by living tissue.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  5. Flaw by Phoenixlol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is considered a flaw in design? I was unaware that these helmets were designed to protect against shockwaves as oppoesed to simply projectiles. "Military Helmet Design Contributes To Brain Damage" makes it sound like the helmet itself is inflicting brain damage, no?

  6. Misleading Title? by quatin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not following the title. An explosion near the head causes brain damage. Wearing a helmet mitigates the effects of the explosion. A military helmet is not maximally effective in mitigating the effects. How did we arrive at a military helmet causes brain damage?

    1. Re:Misleading Title? by Avalain · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The part that they perhaps should have mentioned is that in the TFA they compared the new helmets with the helmets they stopped using in 2003. They found that there is a gap in the new helmet which makes it handle bullets better than the old one, but it seems to handle explosions worse.

      Basically, it's not that the helmet is causing brain damage. It's that the helmet is not protected the soldier from brain damage as well as the older helmet did.

    2. Re:Misleading Title? by Kamokazi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Logic. Specifically, journalistic logic. An accurate title would be boring, so logically you create a title that is more interesting and is also based on words found in the article. Duh.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
  7. War may be dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You have been warned.

  8. Great Headline. by Caue · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Maybe it should have been "explosions cause brain damage and the helmet is not very efficient against those" or "don't wear a military helmet and use TNT"

    I tought helmets were designed to protect from debri and flying objects caused by explosions, not the shockwave from 2 pounds of C-4 lying around.

  9. Actually not. by ljaszcza · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What a headline. Actually, overall, I would think that helmets reduce injury and death. Both in combat and civilian arenas. Just because an inefficiency in military helmet design exists is no reason to say that "Helmet Design Contributes to Brain Damage". As compared to what? Taking shrapnel or a bullet without a helmet? Now the article does suggest that the helmet may increase skull deformation from pressure waves secondary to the helmet design. But the authors admit that these are preliminary results and may or may not relate to the final outcome; TBI. Still, if this line of research pans out, it could lead to some real improvement in head protection. Civilian and military. I just hate misleading, sensational headlines...

    1. Re:Actually not. by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's so true.. it's like blaming seatbelts for shoulder injuries sustained during collisions... of course, the alternative is MUCH worse...

  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Brain damage by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It causes less damage if you use them, even if some scientist found a small flaw in their design. I think a bullet to the head would cause more problems then you brain taking a hit because your helmet stopped the bullet.

    I would also be more worried about the person shooting at you.

    --
    Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
  12. Make the helmets more shock resistant by sacremon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There was just an article earlier today (Orange Goo) about a material that helps absorb shock, so why not line the inside of the helmets with the stuff?

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
    1. Re:Make the helmets more shock resistant by PyroMosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the helmets are designed primarily to be bullet resistant. One of the features it has that makes it bullet resistant is that the helmet doesn't sit on your head, it sits on a web suspension, and the helmet itself surrounds your head by about 1.3cm. That gap helps prevent rounds from penetrating the helmet.

      What the study is saying is that the same gap, put there on purpose because it's beneficial against bullets and shrapnel, allows the shockwave blast from an explosion to be more effective against the skull and brain than helmets without the gap.

      So now the next generation of helmets will likely try to find a happy balance between the gap, and perhaps some kind of foam solution as the article discusses. It's just more data to further refine designs with for the next generation of this particular technology.

  13. Re:Stop calling it IED by russotto · · Score: 4, Informative

    IED = improvised explosive device. As opposed to an explosive device made on a production line somewhere. The military loves acronyms even more than the rest of government, so I doubt there's any Orwellian reason for the name.

  14. Re:Scary by ArbitraryDescriptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Certainly it's possible, they just need better shock absorption. The current design transmits too much of the shock to the skull.

    This problem is actually caused by the helmet's method of not transmitting shock to the skull. FTA:

    To protect soldiers from bullets and shrapnel, modern helmet design maintains a 1.3-cm gap between helmet and head; in the simulation, the blast wave washed into the helmet through this gap. "The helmet acts as a windscoop, so the pressure between the skull and helmet is larger than the blast wave by itself," King said. While the ACH's pads mostly prevented this underwash, they also passed on forces to the skull.

    So the trick is keeping the overpressure out of the helmet, while keeping it separated from the skull. Perhaps a dual helmet design; Rigid outer shell to absorb and deflect impact, and a second separate inner covering to resist overpressure. Either that, or in place of ACH pads, some type of system relying on fluid dynamics to redirects force forward, out the face of the helmet, rather than inward toward the skull.

  15. *sigh* by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    RTFA.

    David Moore, a vascular neurologist and the deputy director of research at the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, headquartered in Washington, D.C., said that the skull flexure mechanism proposed by the physicists is just one hypothesis among several competing concepts of blast waves and injury. "Like all these hypotheses theres yet work to be done in terms of validation," he said. "There are too many unknown variables from the constitutive properties of brain and skull at high strain rates along with other associated blast phenomena."

    The team considered the performance of Kevlar helmets with two kinds of cushioning systems: a nylon web system that was retired in 2003, and the foam pads of the Advanced Combat Helmet, which is standard-issue for today's soldiers. The results were unsettling.

    To protect soldiers from bullets and shrapnel, modern helmet design maintains a 1.3-cm gap between helmet and head; in the simulation, the blast wave washed into the helmet through this gap. "The helmet acts as a windscoop, so the pressure between the skull and helmet is larger than the blast wave by itself," King said. While the ACH's pads mostly prevented this underwash, they also passed on forces to the skull.

    King suggested that the pads' stiffness could be optimized to "take the best of both worlds; it doesn't allow the blast in there, and it doesn't transfer [forces] from the helmet to the head." He stressed that when making changes to the helmet, preserving its ability to reduce impacts and fend off bullets was paramount. "You'd have to be careful to make sure it doesn't interfere with what the helmet does very well, which is stopping fragments and bullets," he said. "The whole idea why there was a big gap between skull and helmet in the first place, is it makes it more likely for the soldier to survive if a bullet hits the helmet."

  16. Re:Stop calling it IED by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, while there is plenty of military doublespeak that could be dispensed with, "IED" I am perfectly happy with. "Improvised" is a worthwhile adjective to use in this context, because the improvised devices do typically have different characteristics from the closest equivalent professionally made devices, so you want to use that or some other adjective (you could use "home made" if you like, but that sounds like you're talking about pie, not weaponry). And since the term covers a range of blast, shrapnel, and incendiary devices, "explosive device" pretty much covers it. For once, it's actually a concise and descriptive acronym.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  17. Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by R2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember reading a similar article about motorcycle helmets, which said that the incident of brain trauma was higher in helmeted riders versus helmetless. Same reason - the rigid helmet transmitted shockwave straight through the skull to the brain, where the facial structure absorbed a lot of the shock in unhelmeted riders.

    So the choice seemed to be pretty and brain damaged, or ugly and smart.

    I think they've redesigned the helmets since then.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by kashani · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is completely false. Idiot people who don't want to have to wear a helmet continue to bring that nonsense up. Think about it. How can a helmet which spreads an impact out over a large space *and* absorbs impact via padding be worse than no helmet at all.

      --
      - Why is the ninja... so deadly?
    2. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by tilandal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Easy, just don't count the people who die from trauma to the head while riding without a helmet.

    3. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by JerkBoB · · Score: 3, Informative

      So the choice seemed to be pretty and brain damaged, or ugly and smart.

      I think they've redesigned the helmets since then.

      I think the choice was more like "pretty, possibly brain-damaged, but ALIVE" and "face ground off by asphalt and DEAD".

      I have personally witnessed two motorcycle accidents... In the first one, the guy dumped his bike while making a tight turn at a rain-slicked intersection. His (helmeted) head hit the pavement hard. Probably wouldn't have killed him, but he would definitely not have been getting up to ride after that without a helmet. Second one, the poor bastard hit a deer at about 70mph. Cut the thing right in two, and he slid on the highway for a while. I stopped to help him, and I saw up-close how badly chewed-up his helmet was. Lucky for him he wasn't one of those assholes who rides wearing nothing but shorts and a t-shirt. His gloved hands were a bit bloody, his knee was probably broken, and his helmet had been worn down in one spot so far that I could see the internal layers. But he was alive.

      I know you were talking about older bike helmet designs, but I hate to see anything that could give no-helmet idiots more fuel for rationalizing their stupidity and selfishness.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    4. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I remember reading a similar article about motorcycle helmets, which said that the incident of brain trauma was higher in helmeted riders versus helmetless. Same reason - the rigid helmet transmitted shockwave straight through the skull to the brain, where the facial structure absorbed a lot of the shock in unhelmeted riders.

      I'm a motorcycle commuter, and I've never heard that statement except when used by people attempting to justify riding without a helmet. The same basic argument is used by opponents of seat-belt laws.

      While there are rigid 'brain bucket' helmets on the market, I don't know of any that are DOT approved. As far as I know, every DOT / SNELL approved helmet built in the last 40 years is a hard shell over a thick foam lining, which is designed to prevent shock from being transmitted directly to the brain.

      The big argument against modern helmets is that they are actually designed to provide protection against unrealistically strong blows. A firmer foam will protect against heavier blows, but won't compress as much when subjected to a lighter strike. The more the helmet compresses, the slower the head inside the helmet can decelerate, reducing the forces the brain is subjected to.

    5. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by minorproblem · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can completly agree that helmets help, the one time that i came off my bike i was sideswiped by a car. I remember sliding along the road after smacking my head really hard thinking "gee this helmet works well". Am really glad i was wearing leathers/kevlar and a helmet. Didn't have a scratch on me after coming off at 80km\h. Just had a corked thigh and a few small burns from the heat of the kevlar rubbing on the road. Jumped up after, took off my helmet and chased my bike down the road thinking oh god my baby!!

    6. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by eggnoglatte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The big argument against modern helmets is that they are actually designed to provide protection against unrealistically strong blows. A firmer foam will protect against heavier blows, but won't compress as much when subjected to a lighter strike. The more the helmet compresses, the slower the head inside the helmet can decelerate, reducing the forces the brain is subjected to.

      Well, that is what speed ratings are for. If you you go offroading, where you are likely to have a reasonable number of smaller falls, you should buy a soft padding helmet, and not a hard one that was designed to keep you alive during a 200 MPH crash on track day. The problem is, a lot of people think a higher speed rating is better, no matter what. That simply ain't so.

      Agree with the rest of your post, though.

    7. Re:Similar to Motorcycle Helmets? by Burning1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't do much dirt riding, so I cannot comment on the construction of dirt helmets.

      Street helmets are not marked for any specific speed rating. Generally, a helmet is either stamped that it meets DOT specifications, or it's been certified by the SNELL Memorial Foundation. The SNELL foundation pushes the most stringent impact requirements, and are the generally target of criticisms that helmets are being engineered for unrealistic impacts.

      For consumers, it's difficult to impossible to pick a helmet based on it's impact protection. Consumers are lead to believe that $900 helmets from Shoei and Arai* provide significantly better protection than an inexpensive $200 Scorpion brand helmet.

      Keep in mind also that a helmet generally experiences it's harshest blows in street conditions. On the race track, there is a great deal of runoff; once the rider hits the ground, his head is subjected to rash and potentially rolling, but is not likely to hit a solid object. Street riders face a greater risk of hitting a tree, curb, or car head-first than a racer does.

      Racing typically has a higher injury rate and a lower fatality rate than street riding.

      * This should not be taken as a criticism of Shoei and Arai. I own a Shoei RF1000 helmet that retailed for $500. The price is justified by the comfort, build quality, and Shoei's excellent customer service. I did not buy the helmet expecting 150% better protection than an inexpensive helmet.

  18. Re:Stop calling it IED by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, there's some very good reasons for calling them IEDs. IED stands for Improvised Explosive Device, of course. What this means is that the explosive device in question is not standard. This matters when it comes to disarming/making them safe.

    If a EOD guy comes across an unexploded MK82, he knows precisely how to disarm it - it's standardized. Same deal with most land mines*, claymore devices, unmodified artillery shells**, and the rest of the world's standard military munitions. We even have books on foreign country's stuff, including Russian and old USSR weapons.

    Each IED, even if from the same maker, is far more unique, presenting unique challanges when it comes to disarming them.

    Oh, and being designated as a land mine doesn't mean a 'large enough' payload, it means it's buried in the ground with an appropriate sensor/detonator to explode when something's over it. Most are pressure sensitive, some anti-vehicle types have magnetic detonators.

    Bombs are generally assumed to be dropped out of planes, but then I'm Air Force.

    *Though booby-trapping can be an issue with these.
    **Many are converted into IEDs via non-conventional detonation systems in Iraq/Afghanistan.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  19. Re:Stop calling it IED by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

    (you could use "home made" if you like, but that sounds like you're talking about pie, not weaponry).

    If you're talking about a pie made by me, then there's not a whole lot of difference.

    Someday I really should release my autobiographical NIN-parody, Terrible Pie.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  20. Yes - it IS flawed by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    shockwaves that make it through the space between a helmet and a soldier's head

    Either Jarhead isn't wearing his helmet properly or there IS a major flaw in the design. This kind of thing is mentioned everywhere.

    Have you ever worn a bike helmet that was 3 sizes too large? How effective was it? Heres an experiment, place a ball on the ground and smack it with your hand. Notice how much it bounces, moves, etc etc. Now take that ball and hold it 2 feet off the ground. Now hit it, and see how much more it bounces.

    If the helmet has an inch of gap, its no surprise that helmets are hitting troops with more effective damage then if they were wearing nothing at all.

    1. Re:Yes - it IS flawed by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      shockwaves that make it through the space between a helmet and a soldier's head

      Either Jarhead isn't wearing his helmet properly or there IS a major flaw in the design.

      Or maybe you don't know what you are talking about.
       

      Have you ever worn a bike helmet that was 3 sizes too large? How effective was it?

      Apples and anchovies. Other than belonging to the same general class of 'helmets', these two types have little to do with each other as they have widely divergent design goals. A bike helmet is meant to protect against abrasion and strong impacts - a soldier's helmet is designed to resist penetration, create ricochets (I.E. divert incoming projectiles), and absorb impacts major and minor *while remaining comfortable to wear for extended periods*.
       
      Additionally, a bicycle helmet and a hard hat can be designed to be essentially disposable... You have an accident, you go get a new helmet. A combat helmet has to remain functional for extended periods despite suffering damage - you can't stop in mid battle to go down and buy a new one.
       
      While a bicycle helmet three sizes too large would be ineffective, a soldier's helmet three sizes too large still provides the considerable protection against the threat(s) it's designed against
       
       

      If the helmet has an inch of gap, its no surprise that helmets are hitting troops with more effective damage then if they were wearing nothing at all.

      On the other hand, the gap was added because it made the helmets more comfortable - and protective gear that is more comfortable to wear is protective gear that's more likely to be worn. (Manufacturers and designers of soldiers combat gear, hard hats, and motorcycle helmets have been struggling with that balance for years.) You see the same thing in the construction worker's hard hat, it sits above the head for ventilation, rather than close to head. The additional gap (in both) also allows the suspension to absorb and diffuse shock from minor impacts and ricochets.
       
      If your casual biker was required to wear a helmet for extended periods for work, rather than for relatively short periods as desired for fun, you can bet your bottom dollar they'd be designed differently. *Way* differently.

  21. I don't know about you. by blakedev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I'm in the military, and I'd rather brain damage than brain splattage.

    --
    QamuIs Heg qaq law' lorvIs yInqaq puS
  22. Re:Stop calling it IED by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what is it when it's made from artillery shells?

    I'll bet there's an army manual somewhere which says so. Probably if the artillery shells are used as artillery shells, they're not considered IEDs, but if they're rigged as a claymore, they are. Sort of like if you somehow hooked a billiard ball to your mouse to make a trackball, you'd have an IPD -- improvised pointing device.

  23. Have to say I noticed by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When I wore the Army helmets in basic training, I noticed this design flaw. Basically, there's no padding or shock absorbing foam in the helmet. (there's a redesigned helmet that is in use now that has a little bit of padding but not like a bike helmet). Sometimes, soldiers would playfully rifle butt each other in the head. I noticed whenever this happened to me that the rigid helmet would let most of the force of the blow right through, and it would make a loud ringing sound. Evidently, that's pretty bad when an IED goes off.

    Of course, the ultimate solution is to put infantry drones in the blast zone of IED, not human beings. Unfortunately for all the soldiers who have died, the tech won't be ready for another 20-30 years.

    1. Re:Have to say I noticed by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I wore the Army helmets in basic training, I noticed this design flaw. Basically, there's no padding or shock absorbing foam in the helmet.

      Actually, there is in the current design (perhaps you used the previous PASGT in Basic Training), which why TFA notes that it almsot completely eliminates the problem resulting from the "underwash" effect that TFS is referring to. Unfortunately, TFA finds that the padded-suspension design the newer helmet design uses still increases brain injury in blasts, by tightly coupling movement and deformation of the helmet to the skull.

  24. Gloves make boxing *MUCH* more dangerous by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

    They also make it possible to hit the head. Without gloves you'd break your hands if you stood there punching at somebody's head. In the old days of bare-knuckle boxing most of the blows were to the body. There were a lot of bruised ribs but hardly anybody died.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Gloves make boxing *MUCH* more dangerous by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Without gloves you'd break your hands if you stood there punching at somebody's head.

      "Head" covers a variety of targets. Punching the forehead? Snap go your knuckles. But punching to the chin, nose, jaw, or ear? With a properly trained and conditioned fist, you can strike to parts of the head without breaking your hand.

      It takes a long time to train a fist, though -- at least three years, according to a common karate maxim -- and I still recommend a palm-heel, hammer fist, or knife hand strike. Or an elbow strike, for close-in work.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  25. Opinion of a Soldier by slpalmer · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think a lot of this stems from the way the current helmet is fitted to the soldiers head. (Yes, I am a soldier, 18th Airborne Corp, Ft Bragg, NC)

      1 - The older Kevlar helmet was fitted to your head with a "sweat band" strapped to the inside of the helmet, which could be adjusted to fit your head exactly.

      2 - The newer ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet) is fitted with velcro backed pads which attach inside the helmet.

    Let me say now that it is *very* common for CIF (where you get issued your equipment) to be out of your size and give you the next size up. With the older Kevlar (case 1 above) you could still fit the sweat band to fit your head, securing the helmet. With the ACH (case 2 above) if the helmet is too big, the pads will be loose on your head, and the helmet will rattle around on your head when concussions occur nearby.

    1. Re:Opinion of a Soldier by slpalmer · · Score: 2, Informative

      One addition...

      The current issue of Army Times is reporting that there is a newer "plastic" helmet in the pipeline to replace the ACH.

    2. Re:Opinion of a Soldier by ajlisows · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This may be a really stupid question...in fact...I'm almost certain that it is a really stupid question. I've never served in the military and have no idea. Do you have any choice whatsoever in the gear you are issued? If you felt safer with the old Kevlar helmet could you ask for that type instead or did they pretty much toss all of them in the garbage?

      I hate to even compare it to the military, but in the NFL you can opt to get one of the new "Anti-Concussion" helmets but the rules do not require you to get one as some players feel there are other drawbacks to the "Safer" model and the evidence of the safety of the new helmet is somewhat questionable. I know in most cases you do not get a heck of a lot of choices in the military but I would think that being asked to wear something shaking around on your head would definitely impair a person's abilities on the field of combat.

    3. Re:Opinion of a Soldier by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you have any choice whatsoever in the gear you are issued?

      No. In some cases you might be able to scrounge a piece of older gear, or if it was issued to you because you were in before the new gear came out you might have been able to hold onto it (sometimes they want to collect all the old stuff). But even in those cases, if the new stuff is sufficiently different in appearance, you might get in trouble for being "out of uniform". How likely that is depends on how much time your leaders have to fuss about such things, and their time or interest in such crap tends to decrease rapidly as you get closer to active combat operations.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  26. Bavarians by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the first world war German soldiers found that the spikes on their pointy helmets tended to get caught on things like tree branches, bunker roofs and occasionally each other.

    The Bavarians came up with an ingenious solution - put the spike on the inside. As an added bonus it stopped them falling off.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  27. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thus it may be possible to solve the problem, but not without tradeoffs...

    So then the soldier is stuck with a helmet that is even more bulky and weighs ten pounds and has a tendency to trap a lot of body heat unless an active liquid cooling system is deployed. And after it's deployed, you then see a lot of soldiers not wearing them because they prefer to have more mobility and endurance on the battlefield.

    In other words, sometimes one compromise is still better than another.

  28. That is "dead" on by CFD339 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My read was exactly the same. The helmets are now so much better at protecting heads than anything ever has been in the past, that we're having to model air pressure caused skull flex in order to find something to make better. That's fantastic! Not too long ago the trauma was more likely to be a piece of a bomb going through the brain that caused the damage.

    And yeah -- anything they can do to make them better is a good thing, but lets applaud how far they've come.

    The only thing I'd add, is that if we could find a way to have less soldiers in the way of bombs and bullets, we could be less aggressive on helmet designs too. Ah well.

    --
    The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln