Leading Concussion Dr. says no football before Age 18

[twnoexcuses]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2596 ... =editorial

[Ramashack]

does the waiver parents may sign shield schools & leagues from any liability?
is that article really for the parents or the leagues to act upon?
if taxpayers monies (and lots of it) are at stake, is it worth it for what really amounts to "entertainment"?

[twnoexcuses]

does the waiver parents may sign shield schools & leagues from any liability?
is that article really for the parents or the leagues to act upon?
if taxpayers monies (and lots of it) are at stake, is it worth it for what really amounts to "entertainment"?

I think this is something that everyone should think long and hard about. Sticking one's head in the sand over it just seems completely irresponsible.

This is the issue in a nutshell:

If you let your kid play football, there is a high likelihood, that should probably be considered a certainty, that they will receive several blows of the head of multiple "G's" in each game, if not daily at practice.

Those blows to the head are intentional, taught because of the nature of the game by coaches (not necessarily because they are bad people, but because it is the nature of the game), and something that can happen not only because of what your kid does, BUT also because of what an opponent does, because your kid cannot control what the other kid is doing.

Yes, the other kid will get a penalty (maybe, actually) if they obviously try to hit your kid in the head. Yes, that other kid might even get kicked out of the game. So, there are rules designed to protect your kid. BUT, more likely than not, your kid will receive a blow with concussion potential AT LEAST once during a game, and likely during practice, which will not rise to the level of being something worthy of a penalty flag. And, even if there is a penalty flag thrown, or the other kid is kicked out, your kid still has brain damage (albeit, hopefully only temporary).

People can't stick their heads in the sand any longer. The evidence is too compelling. Sending your kid out to play football equals, for all intents and purposes, sending them out to get brain damage.

Sorry. I know it's tough to read all that, and some might even get angry at me. But, I think it is also the tough, tough truth. We now know. Football should be a thing of the past, especially for youth.

[twnoexcuses]

Also, for all of us who say, "I played football. I'm fine."

We were lucky. Or, so we think right now.

[bigD]

Also, for all of us who say, "I played football. I'm fine."

We were lucky. Or, so we think right now.

does the waiver parents may sign shield schools & leagues from any liability?
is that article really for the parents or the leagues to act upon?
if taxpayers monies (and lots of it) are at stake, is it worth it for what really amounts to "entertainment"?

I think this is something that everyone should think long and hard about. Sticking one's head in the sand over it just seems completely irresponsible.

This is the issue in a nutshell:

If you let your kid play football, there is a high likelihood, that should probably be considered a certainty, that they will receive several blows of the head of multiple "G's" in each game, if not daily at practice.

Those blows to the head are intentional, taught because of the nature of the game by coaches (not necessarily because they are bad people, but because it is the nature of the game), and something that can happen not only because of what your kid does, BUT also because of what an opponent does, because your kid cannot control what the other kid is doing.

Yes, the other kid will get a penalty (maybe, actually) if they obviously try to hit your kid in the head. Yes, that other kid might even get kicked out of the game. So, there are rules designed to protect your kid. BUT, more likely than not, your kid will receive a blow with concussion potential AT LEAST once during a game, and likely during practice, which will not rise to the level of being something worthy of a penalty flag. And, even if there is a penalty flag thrown, or the other kid is kicked out, your kid still has brain damage (albeit, hopefully only temporary).

People can't stick their heads in the sand any longer. The evidence is too compelling. Sending your kid out to play football equals, for all intents and purposes, sending them out to get brain damage.

Sorry. I know it's tough to read all that, and some might even get angry at me. But, I think it is also the tough, tough truth. We now know. Football should be a thing of the past, especially for youth.

You also have the potential to break a leg playing basketball, getting hit in the face with a baseball, or passing out during a wrestling match... Sending your kids out to play any sport has its potential risks.

[twnoexcuses]

Also, for all of us who say, "I played football. I'm fine."

We were lucky. Or, so we think right now.

does the waiver parents may sign shield schools & leagues from any liability?
is that article really for the parents or the leagues to act upon?
if taxpayers monies (and lots of it) are at stake, is it worth it for what really amounts to "entertainment"?

I think this is something that everyone should think long and hard about. Sticking one's head in the sand over it just seems completely irresponsible.

This is the issue in a nutshell:

If you let your kid play football, there is a high likelihood, that should probably be considered a certainty, that they will receive several blows of the head of multiple "G's" in each game, if not daily at practice.

Those blows to the head are intentional, taught because of the nature of the game by coaches (not necessarily because they are bad people, but because it is the nature of the game), and something that can happen not only because of what your kid does, BUT also because of what an opponent does, because your kid cannot control what the other kid is doing.

Yes, the other kid will get a penalty (maybe, actually) if they obviously try to hit your kid in the head. Yes, that other kid might even get kicked out of the game. So, there are rules designed to protect your kid. BUT, more likely than not, your kid will receive a blow with concussion potential AT LEAST once during a game, and likely during practice, which will not rise to the level of being something worthy of a penalty flag. And, even if there is a penalty flag thrown, or the other kid is kicked out, your kid still has brain damage (albeit, hopefully only temporary).

People can't stick their heads in the sand any longer. The evidence is too compelling. Sending your kid out to play football equals, for all intents and purposes, sending them out to get brain damage.

Sorry. I know it's tough to read all that, and some might even get angry at me. But, I think it is also the tough, tough truth. We now know. Football should be a thing of the past, especially for youth.

You also have the potential to break a leg playing basketball, getting hit in the face with a baseball, or passing out during a wrestling match... Sending your kids out to play any sport has its potential risks.

So does Russian Roulette. There are risks and there are risks.

That is one of the poorest arguments/rationalizations for sending a kid out to play tackle football today.

[soleu]

Also, for all of us who say, "I played football. I'm fine."

We were lucky. Or, so we think right now.

I think this is something that everyone should think long and hard about. Sticking one's head in the sand over it just seems completely irresponsible.

This is the issue in a nutshell:

If you let your kid play football, there is a high likelihood, that should probably be considered a certainty, that they will receive several blows of the head of multiple "G's" in each game, if not daily at practice.

Those blows to the head are intentional, taught because of the nature of the game by coaches (not necessarily because they are bad people, but because it is the nature of the game), and something that can happen not only because of what your kid does, BUT also because of what an opponent does, because your kid cannot control what the other kid is doing.

Yes, the other kid will get a penalty (maybe, actually) if they obviously try to hit your kid in the head. Yes, that other kid might even get kicked out of the game. So, there are rules designed to protect your kid. BUT, more likely than not, your kid will receive a blow with concussion potential AT LEAST once during a game, and likely during practice, which will not rise to the level of being something worthy of a penalty flag. And, even if there is a penalty flag thrown, or the other kid is kicked out, your kid still has brain damage (albeit, hopefully only temporary).

People can't stick their heads in the sand any longer. The evidence is too compelling. Sending your kid out to play football equals, for all intents and purposes, sending them out to get brain damage.

Sorry. I know it's tough to read all that, and some might even get angry at me. But, I think it is also the tough, tough truth. We now know. Football should be a thing of the past, especially for youth.

You also have the potential to break a leg playing basketball, getting hit in the face with a baseball, or passing out during a wrestling match... Sending your kids out to play any sport has its potential risks.

So does Russian Roulette. There are risks and there are risks.

That is one of the poorest arguments/rationalizations for sending a kid out to play tackle football today.

smh Big D's comparisons are more relevant than you realize. With the rules limiting helmet-to-helmet contact and the coaches being liable in teaching proper technique, this isn't your daddy's style of football. The risks are there like everything else, but the chances of it happening are being reduced.

If you don't want your kids playing football, that's your call. But cut the condescending mess to all those who choose otherwise. You're speaking as if you automatically get brain damage playing football while discrediting those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences.

Football is another avenue to a college degree and perhaps the best option for some that don't quickly catch on in the classroom. If my kid chooses to play, I'll do my best to help him succeed through valleys and peaks.

[twnoexcuses]

smh Big D's comparisons are more relevant than you realize. With the rules limiting helmet-to-helmet contact and the coaches being liable in teaching proper technique, this isn't your daddy's style of football. The risks are there like everything else, but the chances of it happening are being reduced.

If you don't want your kids playing football, that's your call. But cut the condescending mess to all those who choose otherwise. You're speaking as if you automatically get brain damage playing football while discrediting those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences.

Football is another avenue to a college degree and perhaps the best option for some that don't quickly catch on in the classroom. If my kid chooses to play, I'll do my best to help him succeed through valleys and peaks.

Yup. I understand your perspective. And I apologize for making you angry, or feeling like I'm being condescending.

But let me ask you this. This preseason, did your kid's coach or AD tell you about this?:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... ayers.html

I think the fear of sounding condescending, or getting reactions like yours, or risking being criticized for challenging the money machine that is football in this country, or putting a damper of the dreams of Dads everywhere (which I had at one time), are precisely the reasons there can be scientific findings like what the Purdue researchers are concluding, and the people who secure the brains of dead NFL players to examine them are finding, but little to no public outcry.

I struggle with writing this stuff, precisely because I don't want to offend anyone who has for whatever reason made the choice to let their kid play in the face of all the research.

But, my perspective, which I've come to hold very, very strongly, is, I believe, bullied into submission across this nation. In fact, my view is that there is a conscious effort to bury that kind of information, due to various motivations. And it is remarkable to me that it is going on.

You're annoyed with me because I'm arguing for kid safety. Which is also remarkable to me. Yet, I fully understand it.

Yes. I understand the value of a college scholarship. Yes. I understand the good stuff football can teach. And, yes. I love watching football and loved playing it.

But, I love vienna sausages but won't feed them to my kids.

Did you have ANY idea that this recently (August 2015 - THIS PAST PRESEASON!) published Purdue research pieces existed, or what the scary conclusions were?

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

[soleu]

smh Big D's comparisons are more relevant than you realize. With the rules limiting helmet-to-helmet contact and the coaches being liable in teaching proper technique, this isn't your daddy's style of football. The risks are there like everything else, but the chances of it happening are being reduced.

If you don't want your kids playing football, that's your call. But cut the condescending mess to all those who choose otherwise. You're speaking as if you automatically get brain damage playing football while discrediting those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences.

Football is another avenue to a college degree and perhaps the best option for some that don't quickly catch on in the classroom. If my kid chooses to play, I'll do my best to help him succeed through valleys and peaks.

Yup. I understand your perspective. And I apologize for making you angry, or feeling like I'm being condescending.

But let me ask you this. This preseason, did your kid's coach or AD tell you about this?:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... ayers.html

I think the fear of sounding condescending, or getting reactions like yours, or risking being criticized for challenging the money machine that is football in this country, or putting a damper of the dreams of Dads everywhere (which I had at one time), are precisely the reasons there can be scientific findings like what the Purdue researchers are concluding, and the people who secure the brains of dead NFL players to examine them are finding, but little to no public outcry.

I struggle with writing this stuff, precisely because I don't want to offend anyone who has for whatever reason made the choice to let their kid play in the face of all the research.

But, my perspective, which I've come to hold very, very strongly, is, I believe, bullied into submission across this nation. In fact, my view is that there is a conscious effort to bury that kind of information, due to various motivations. And it is remarkable to me that it is going on.

You're annoyed with me because I'm arguing for kid safety. Which is also remarkable to me. Yet, I fully understand it.

Yes. I understand the value of a college scholarship. Yes. I understand the good stuff football can teach. And, yes. I love watching football and loved playing it.

But, I love vienna sausages but won't feed them to my kids.

Did you have ANY idea that this recently (August 2015 - THIS PAST PRESEASON!) published Purdue research pieces existed, or what the scary conclusions were?

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

No I'm annoyed because you're dictating the subject matter and twisting others words.

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

I like the article you posted and how it broadens your point on the matter. It's the irrelevant "vienna sausages"/but what if he's saying...when he's obviously saying something else/Russian Roulette stuff that you try to use to disprove others that comes out as condescending and ignorant to the otherside of the subject.

Like I said the game is different from it was in our time. We didn't have the mandatory drills and set of rules that the kids have today. I expect the efforts for concussion prevention to be on another level once Will Smith's movie is released. But why deny someone a chance if they want it? Why stop them out of fear if they excel? With the new style of football, the benefits are starting to outweigh the risks.

What about boxing and Ali? 20 years ago we saw the GOAT do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEhNDUwksvU
and yet some kids grow and still want to box for personal gain. Who are we to handcuff them and say no?

All I'm saying is that if a kid wants to play knowing the risks, let him play. I'm not going to force the sport on them but if they choose to play, why not prepare them for the game instead of shutting it down altogether?

[twnoexcuses]

smh Big D's comparisons are more relevant than you realize. With the rules limiting helmet-to-helmet contact and the coaches being liable in teaching proper technique, this isn't your daddy's style of football. The risks are there like everything else, but the chances of it happening are being reduced.

If you don't want your kids playing football, that's your call. But cut the condescending mess to all those who choose otherwise. You're speaking as if you automatically get brain damage playing football while discrediting those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences.

Football is another avenue to a college degree and perhaps the best option for some that don't quickly catch on in the classroom. If my kid chooses to play, I'll do my best to help him succeed through valleys and peaks.

Yup. I understand your perspective. And I apologize for making you angry, or feeling like I'm being condescending.

But let me ask you this. This preseason, did your kid's coach or AD tell you about this?:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... ayers.html

I think the fear of sounding condescending, or getting reactions like yours, or risking being criticized for challenging the money machine that is football in this country, or putting a damper of the dreams of Dads everywhere (which I had at one time), are precisely the reasons there can be scientific findings like what the Purdue researchers are concluding, and the people who secure the brains of dead NFL players to examine them are finding, but little to no public outcry.

I struggle with writing this stuff, precisely because I don't want to offend anyone who has for whatever reason made the choice to let their kid play in the face of all the research.

But, my perspective, which I've come to hold very, very strongly, is, I believe, bullied into submission across this nation. In fact, my view is that there is a conscious effort to bury that kind of information, due to various motivations. And it is remarkable to me that it is going on.

You're annoyed with me because I'm arguing for kid safety. Which is also remarkable to me. Yet, I fully understand it.

Yes. I understand the value of a college scholarship. Yes. I understand the good stuff football can teach. And, yes. I love watching football and loved playing it.

But, I love vienna sausages but won't feed them to my kids.

Did you have ANY idea that this recently (August 2015 - THIS PAST PRESEASON!) published Purdue research pieces existed, or what the scary conclusions were?

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

No I'm annoyed because you're dictating the subject matter and twisting others words.

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

I like the article you posted and how it broadens your point on the matter. It's the irrelevant "vienna sausages"/but what if he's saying...when he's obviously saying something else/Russian Roulette stuff that you try to use to disprove others that comes out as condescending and ignorant to the otherside of the subject.

Like I said the game is different from it was in our time. We didn't have the mandatory drills and set of rules that the kids have today. I expect the efforts for concussion prevention to be on another level once Will Smith's movie is released. But why deny someone a chance if they want it? Why stop them out of fear if they excel? With the new style of football, the benefits are starting to outweigh the risks.

What about boxing and Ali? 20 years ago we saw the GOAT do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEhNDUwksvU
and yet some kids grow and still want to box for personal gain. Who are we to handcuff them and say no?

All I'm saying is that if a kid wants to play knowing the risks, let him play. I'm not going to force the sport on them but if they choose to play, why not prepare them for the game instead of shutting it down altogether?

Russian Roulette, driving (or operation of any type of motorized vehicle), swimming with sharks, playing with fire, etc.

There are all manner of things we take responsibility for as a society when it comes to children, and say they cannot do. ESPECIALLY not just because they "want to".

First, one of my main points is that people DON'T KNOW THE RISKS because there has been, in my view, a conscious and really diabolical effort to HIDE and SUPPRESS information about the actual risks of playing football. I ask again, the question you didn't answer. Did you now about the Purdue study this past pre-season? Did the parents of your kids' teammates? Did your kid or his or her teammates? At what age is the choice of a kid legit on this issue? Pop Warner? Big Boy? First two years of high school (before they are even deemed responsible enough to drive a car with seatbelts and airbags?? Even if they want to?)?

Second, the first post of this thread links an article with a very simple proposition. No tackle football for kids below the age of 18. It doesn't make all the points I make, because, I think that Dr. has been through the ringer being demonized and getting his life threatened for asking the hard questions that have led to this greater understanding of the consequences of football. His point is simple. The brain is developing during childhood. It is not a good idea to subject it to the type of trauma that football can cause. A pretty safe scientific and logical position.

I have NOT advocated that football be shut down altogether. I have merely extended the scientific position Omalu advocates based on what I think are real life considerations, with a good dose of distaste for the lack of meaningful dissemination of hard core scientific research down to the decision making level (parents of kids, and, not that it matters, or maybe it does, to the kids themselves).

My arguments, I think are natural ones. They are the ones my Mother made instinctively before she relented to my playing football. The problem is, at the time, she was only worried about broken arms and knee injuries. She had no idea my brain was at risk. No one told her. Maybe at the time, there was nothing out there to tell her so that she knew. Today, she would. So would my Dad. And, I know that had they had that information, I would never have played football.

But, even with all that information out there, and your contention that the game is being made safer, there is this, from THIS year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0A0bdntPDg Here's a better one (depending on your perspective) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfjgN8_5GQk

Watch what's going on. Not necessarily even just the ball carriers. Watch the line and downfield blocking. Watch how many times you see a head bounce off the turf.

All GREAT football. GREAT hitting. The stuff of football glory. Football at its highest level.

Makes me cringe. Didn't see a single flag thrown.

Also, I agree the "vienna sausage" analogy wasn't the greatest. Think about this instead: "lead paint". More on point. I worry about it and try to keep my kids away from it because it causes brain damage.

Finally, I ain't twisting anyone's words. I'm merely contrasting them as used, and employing examples and references to scientific research and audio visual material.

[Fballfanatic]

I understand the concern about the concussions but what about a sport like soccer which is second in concussions in high school sports? I know it might not seem as bad but a concussion does not need to be a "knockout" blow and the chances of you hitting your head in soccer are also high. So do we say to our kids to not play soccer either?

[westside.gee]

In soccer the players are fighting for the ball, in football the players are targeting the opposing player, big difference. In a soccer game there might be 3 or 4 collisions that could result in a player receiving a concussion. In football every play there are at least 8 collisions (blocking, tackling) where potential concussions occur, in the entire game thats about 280. Compared to 4 in soccer and I would say Football is WAY more risky.

[westside.gee]

I agree that many parents, mostly Mothers, are steering their boys away from little league football. This will lessen the talent pool in most neighborhoods and the local public schools football team will suffer. The few kids that are talented will realize that they will never get the exposure needed for scouts to see them play in the playoffs so they will transfer to one of the ILH big three or to the nearest public school with the most talent. The past four years that "gathering" school was Mililani, I think Kapolei might be the future "gathering" school that battles Kahuku for OIA titles. Kahuku breeds football players and will always be in contention for titles.
The weak will get weaker and the strong will get stronger, we will continue to see the same 3 schools playing for state titles year in and year out.

[twnoexcuses]

I understand the concern about the concussions but what about a sport like soccer which is second in concussions in high school sports? I know it might not seem as bad but a concussion does not need to be a "knockout" blow and the chances of you hitting your head in soccer are also high. So do we say to our kids to not play soccer either?

Soccer is a problem too from a numerical perspectivd. Once they started taking a hard look after all the football revelations, they initially thought it was due to "heading" the ball.

There was some study done that indicated that "heading" is only involved in about 30% of soccer concussions. The rest apparently come from collisions between players or contact with the ground.

I think the percentage of female sports concussions coming from soccer is super high. Which makes sense since females don't play much football.

Would think that lacrosse might also reflect high incidences.

[OldManJenkins]

smh Big D's comparisons are more relevant than you realize. With the rules limiting helmet-to-helmet contact and the coaches being liable in teaching proper technique, this isn't your daddy's style of football. The risks are there like everything else, but the chances of it happening are being reduced.

If you don't want your kids playing football, that's your call. But cut the condescending mess to all those who choose otherwise. You're speaking as if you automatically get brain damage playing football while discrediting those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences.

Football is another avenue to a college degree and perhaps the best option for some that don't quickly catch on in the classroom. If my kid chooses to play, I'll do my best to help him succeed through valleys and peaks.

Yup. I understand your perspective. And I apologize for making you angry, or feeling like I'm being condescending.

But let me ask you this. This preseason, did your kid's coach or AD tell you about this?:

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases ... ayers.html

I think the fear of sounding condescending, or getting reactions like yours, or risking being criticized for challenging the money machine that is football in this country, or putting a damper of the dreams of Dads everywhere (which I had at one time), are precisely the reasons there can be scientific findings like what the Purdue researchers are concluding, and the people who secure the brains of dead NFL players to examine them are finding, but little to no public outcry.

I struggle with writing this stuff, precisely because I don't want to offend anyone who has for whatever reason made the choice to let their kid play in the face of all the research.

But, my perspective, which I've come to hold very, very strongly, is, I believe, bullied into submission across this nation. In fact, my view is that there is a conscious effort to bury that kind of information, due to various motivations. And it is remarkable to me that it is going on.

You're annoyed with me because I'm arguing for kid safety. Which is also remarkable to me. Yet, I fully understand it.

Yes. I understand the value of a college scholarship. Yes. I understand the good stuff football can teach. And, yes. I love watching football and loved playing it.

But, I love vienna sausages but won't feed them to my kids.

Did you have ANY idea that this recently (August 2015 - THIS PAST PRESEASON!) published Purdue research pieces existed, or what the scary conclusions were?

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

No I'm annoyed because you're dictating the subject matter and twisting others words.

Note, it says that " those who have said the opposite even though they are living proof of their statements and speak from personal experiences," could very well be living proof of just the opposite of what they say, without anyone, including them, even knowing it.

I like the article you posted and how it broadens your point on the matter. It's the irrelevant "vienna sausages"/but what if he's saying...when he's obviously saying something else/Russian Roulette stuff that you try to use to disprove others that comes out as condescending and ignorant to the otherside of the subject.

Like I said the game is different from it was in our time. We didn't have the mandatory drills and set of rules that the kids have today. I expect the efforts for concussion prevention to be on another level once Will Smith's movie is released. But why deny someone a chance if they want it? Why stop them out of fear if they excel? With the new style of football, the benefits are starting to outweigh the risks.

What about boxing and Ali? 20 years ago we saw the GOAT do this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEhNDUwksvU
and yet some kids grow and still want to box for personal gain. Who are we to handcuff them and say no?

All I'm saying is that if a kid wants to play knowing the risks, let him play. I'm not going to force the sport on them but if they choose to play, why not prepare them for the game instead of shutting it down altogether?

It is great you are willing to let your kid get exposed to head trauma. All the preventative measures being done will not safe guard the kids, it makes only makes it safer. Kids are not in any way in a position to make the choice to play. Parents need to make the initiative to educate themselves and make the choice they feel is right based on the facts and statistics they uncover. To be close minded and stick you head in the sand is not acceptable.
Knowing the effects of alcohol is it OK to allow your kids to drink? Apparently the government believes you need to be 21 to make that choice on your own.
I believe the twnoexcuses guy is trying to say pull your heads out of your butts and educate yourself, then make a decision... not excuses or rationals.
if football and soccer are so bad, making my kid play would be child abuse or endangerment?