Very good analysis, Steve. Thanks for the insight.
Richard in San Antonio
On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:48:44 -0800 "Steven T. Ekstrand"
<cyberlaw@earthlink.net> writes:
> | And you made this determination after doing all the same
> investigation
> | of this particular accident as NASCAR, doctors, and other experts
> who
> | were actually on scene and in the hospital, right? Saw the
> evidence
> | firsthand and everything?
>
> Obviously not, so don't be a f*ing smartass because I'm not really
> in the
> mood. I will debate anybody in the world on this particular issue,
> Physician, racer, NASCAR official, or mailing list member.
>
> | CNN is reporting the cause of death as "blunt trauma to his
> | head" - not neccessarily his head moving in such a way as would
> be
> | prevented by the HANS device.
>
> Gonzalo Rodriguez's list of death was Blunt Force Trauma to the
> head.
> That's what it is called to the ignorant medical examiners who
> perform
> autopsies on race car drivers like that were in a traffic accident.
> They
> are wrong. Gary Bohannon admitted as much at the press conference
> today.
> But, he is the NASCAR mouthpiece, so he walked the corporate line on
> the
> HANS device. Dr. Bohannon said that it was indeed a Basal Skull
> Fracture.
> He added that he personally felt that there was enough damage to the
> base
> of the brain that the trauma to the brain tissues would have
> resulted in
> death regardless of the use of the HANS device. I would strongly
> disagree.
> What the NASCAR Dr. was basically doing is conceding that the HANS
> might
> have prevented the skull fracture and resulting bled out, but the
> brain
> trauma was fatal. That is inconsistent statement based on what we
> only
> recently know about such injuries. It is the brain stem that causes
> the
> fracture. If the HANS device can support the head and neck, helping
> absorb
> the effects of acceleration/deceleration enough to prevent the
> fracture, it
> will also lessen the trauma to the brain tissue itself. Hence, my
> comment
> that concession/conclusion were contradictory.
>
> There are no absolutes in life. There is no way make racing safe
> and
> that's okay. Racers know the risk and gladly accept it to do what
> they do.
> The only argument I can see against making the HANS device mandatory
> is a
> very good one. It is one that I would usually support without
> question.
> That is that is should be the drivers choice, like helmets on
> motorcycle
> riders and seatbelts in car, etc.
>
> | It's all about inertia. Even if his head had been secure, his
> brain
> | would have hit the inside of it at a very, very high speed.
>
> Makes since certainly from a first thought, but what happens is that
> the
> head snaps forward and tilts down to its farthest extension until
> it
> suddenly stops and recoils. The brain is offered no resistance as
> it moves
> forward as well until the heads stops and slams the top of the
> skull. If
> the head where restrained with the HANS device the G's could be
> better
> asorbed because although the head still moves it meets resistence
> immediately. The brain hits the skull sooner, but the skull is
> moving in
> the same direction only slower than the brain.
>
> I trust NASCAR and NASCAR's doctors about as far as I would trust
> PT
> Barnum. The sad thing is you can take a majority of the none
> motorsports
> connected expert neurologists in the country and poll them about the
> crash,
> they back up everything NASCAR will claim about the accident
> regarding
> there was nothing anybody or any device could have done. The
> medical
> profession outside of a very few familiar with motorsports head
> injuries
> doesn't have a clue.
>
> -Steve Ekstrand
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:59:21 EDT