Most active commenters
  • mlyle(3)

←back to thread

352 points keithly | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.763s | source | bottom
Show context
kart23 ◴[] No.41842758[source]
Isn't flossing not supported by science also, but all the news articles said you should keep flossing?
replies(11): >>41842896 #>>41842925 #>>41843072 #>>41843073 #>>41843193 #>>41843771 #>>41843835 #>>41844751 #>>41846373 #>>41848691 #>>41850301 #
1. lesuorac ◴[] No.41843072[source]
Perhaps you'll find it useful that a double-blind study found no improvement in outcome from use of a parachute when jumping out of a helicopter.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

replies(3): >>41843112 #>>41843948 #>>41844155 #
2. hervature ◴[] No.41843112[source]
That's not at all what that "study" says. It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.
replies(2): >>41844172 #>>41848505 #
3. underbiding ◴[] No.41843948[source]
the studies are about outcomes of parachute use writ-large ("gravitational challenges"), not just helicopters.

Only reason I'm being pedantic here is because if the study was in-fact looking at parachutes from helicopters, it could actually be plausible that parachutes had no improvements when used with helicopters. Most, if not all pilots, don't wear parachutes because there's not enough time to jump out of a crashing helicopter to deploy one and the blades would probably hit you anyway (unlike a plane which you could glide for some time, helicopters are notoriously more likely to fall straight like a brick)

replies(1): >>41846587 #
4. mlyle ◴[] No.41844155[source]
Your comment is misled.

This is a systemic review. A RCT would absolutely find a difference. The whole point of this satire is to point out that there's not always studies on what you want to know. "No randomised controlled trials of parachute use have been undertaken"

Flossing has absolutely been studied. Professional flossing seems effective at combating gum disease. Telling people to floss doesn't seem to be. It's unclear why (is it just compliance effects? are people educated on how to floss still ineffective? etc.)

replies(1): >>41844584 #
5. mlyle ◴[] No.41844172[source]
> It is a critique (in poor taste if you ask me) that everything does not require a double-blind study.

I think the real point is that systemic reviews often will have a pretty tilted set of included studies, because they are influenced by what things researchers choose to study.

Indeed, you probably couldn't publish a study saying that parachutes work; it's not an interesting enough finding for publication. So the only stuff you'll find, in many cases, are studies that buck the prevailing wisdom.

6. lesuorac ◴[] No.41844584[source]
Ah, you're right I grabbed the wrong paper. I presume the other commenter (hervature ) also knew what paper I meant.

But yes, the item you want studied might not have been studied. ("However, the trial was only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious extrapolation to high altitude jumps.")

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

replies(1): >>41845192 #
7. mlyle ◴[] No.41845192{3}[source]
OK. So another low effort comment on a serious subthread.
8. agurk ◴[] No.41846587[source]
Interestingly helicopters don't fall out of the sky when they lose power. Air moving over the rotorblades causes lift, as they are after all wings. During normal flight the blades are turned by the engine generating lift in the expected way. If you are already above the ground and start descending, the airflow over the blades as you descend will cause them to rotate and generate lift. This is known as autorotation[0], and allows control over the unpowered descending craft.

It is a normal procedure to be able to safely land this way when power has been lost, and in some ways is safer than a gliding fixed wing aircraft as you don't need a runway to land on.

Of course catastrophic failure is possible in a helicopter where the rotorblades can't turn, and then autorotation won't work. But then if a wing falls off a fixed-wing aircraft, they generally can't be controlled (interesting exceptions do exist like with the Israeli F15[1]).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autorotation

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision

replies(2): >>41847338 #>>41867280 #
9. ◴[] No.41847338{3}[source]
10. marcosdumay ◴[] No.41848505[source]
IMO, it's a critique on the "no study shows it exists, therefore it doesn't exist" attitude.

If you manage to do double-blind studies for every single piece of knowledge out there, kudos for you. There's nothing bad in this.

Anyway, it's on topic for several sidelines people are raising. But not on topic for the main article.

11. magnetowasright ◴[] No.41867280{3}[source]
The Jesus nut[0] failing is one such catastrophic failure; the rotor would separate. I just think it's neat that it has a Wikipedia page.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_nut