Idiot Drinks So Much Water She Dies

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/13/water.intox.ap/index.html

Darwin at work.

[dann]

Darwin??! Or some @$$holes at a radio station who took advantage of a woman who happened to want to please her children, but did not have quite enough money to do so!
This cynical "Darwin" argument is getting more and more stupid!

the "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest in which KDND 107.9 promised a Nintendo Wii video game system for the winner.

"She said to one of our supervisors that she was on her way home and her head was hurting her real bad," said Laura Rios, one of Strange's co-workers at Radiological Associates of Sacramento. "She was crying, and that was the last that anyone had heard from her."
(...)
"I was talking to her and she was a nice lady," Ybarra said. "She was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for her kids."

[Lisa Simpson]

It's very sad, and frankly, most people probably don't know you can die from drinking too much water.

[DanishDynamite]

People will do anything if a radio channel offers a prize.

We recently had a case here in Denmark where a radio channel offered a prize if someone would throw a whipped cream cake into the face of another. Five minutes after the prize was announced, a guy walked into a bakery, asked for a cake with whipped cream, and then threw it into the face of the shop-assistent who handed it to him.

I'm happy to say that not only was the "cake-thrower" arrested, but the radio channel was charged as well.

Idiots.

[DanishDynamite]

Darwin??! Or some @$$holes at a radio station who took advantage of a woman who happened to want to please her children, but did not have quite enough money to do so!
This cynical "Darwin" argument is getting more and more studid!
She was an idiot. The Darwin prize is well deserved, if she makes the nomination.

[tkingdoll]

It's very sad, and frankly, most people probably don't know you can die from drinking too much water.

I agree, particularly when it's part of an organised event - presumably she trusted the radio station to not run a competition that could put her at risk.

I don't think there's anything funny or ironic about this story at all, and the only stupid people are the competition organisers.

[DanishDynamite]

I agree, particularly when it's part of an organised event - presumably she trusted the radio station to not run a competition that could put her at risk.
Which would be an idiotic thing to do.
I don't think there's anything funny or ironic about this story at all, and the only stupid people are the competition organisers.
I don't think there is anything funny about this women being so uneducated, but otherwise....

[FarmallMTA]

It's very sad, and frankly, most people probably don't know you can die from drinking too much water.

I thought that was called "drowning?" One of mankind's basic avoidance instincts? As in, "stay away from the water! You hear me young man? Don't you dare drown or sure as the Pope says Mass on roller skates I'll cut a switch and tan your little 8 yr. old hide!"

And don't, like, totally bore me with the distinction between inhaling water thereby preventing blood oxygenation vs. imbibition resulting in solute dilution of cellular contents and membrane rupture. Yawn.

So, I guess she did it for her kids after all. At least they won't be learning any life lessons from a clueless idiot of a mother. And on the bright side (there's always a bright side) they can sell her car to kick off the "help the orphans" scholarship fund. Should be an easy sell since she apparently didn't ruin the upholstery. ROFLMAO.

And yes, my mother would be appalled at my witty callousness. But she was Scots and had zero sense of humor, anyway.

[dann]

At least they won't be learning any life lessons from a clueless idiot of a mother. And I guess that the other contestants and the listeners who didn't interfere were all either clueless idiots who also deserve to die or cynics who couldn't wait for 'Darwin' to eliminate a few of the idiots?

[FarmallMTA]

Which would be an idiotic thing to do.

No kidding. I'm not aware of any MENSA members who take their investment advice, family planning advice, romance advice, career advice, or any other kind of life advice from wacky morning DJ "Madman" Mike Antony or anybody else from the Q Morning Zoo Crew (ref Onion.com/content/node/29372). To do so would indeed be Darwin Award-bait idiocy.

I don't think there is anything funny about this women being so uneducated, but otherwise....

I'm not so sure education helps stupid people. I'm envisioning here, hypothetically mind you, a gaggle of sissy-sport players at an elite southern university hanging out on a Saturday afternoon cooking a bowl and drinking beer and somehow drunkenly coming up with the way wack notion of having a totally bitchin' party with, like, a DJ and maybe a couple of totally gross fat ugly black strippers just for laughs!"

Followed, of course, by high fives and soul daps and cheers all around for coming up with such a great idea.

[This Guy]

I think calling the woman stupid is a bit of an assumption.

Was what she did the most brilliant thing? Of course not. But, for what it's worth, I have never heard of water intoxication, in all of my 52 years. And most people, I believe, would assume that a contest held by a local station (radio or TV) would be safe. Hell, I would consider drinking water to be safer than say, seeing how many hot dogs you can eat in a given period of time!

I think the question now is what liability does the station have? Did they do any checking on the possible downsides to their contest? I suspect we'll find out when the lawsuits start.

As for the woman, she was trying to do something for her kids. It was drinking water! Hell, she carried them for 9 months, and then gave them birth! Neither of which I'm sure I would be willing to do! Drinking water should have been as easy as...well drinking water!

I think it's a sad story, and I regret the loss of her life, and the loss to her family and friends.

[Lisa Simpson]

And yes, my mother would be appalled at my witty callousness. But she was Scots and had zero sense of humor, anyway.

Callous? Yes. Witty? No.

[FarmallMTA]

Which would be an idiotic thing to do.

I don't think there is anything funny about this women being so uneducated, but otherwise....

And I guess that the other contestants and the listeners who didn't interfere were all either clueless idiots who also deserve to die or cynics who couldn't wait for 'Darwin' to eliminate a few of the idiots?

Yes.

[DanishDynamite]

No kidding. I'm not aware of any MENSA members who take their investment advice, family planning advice, romance advice, career advice, or any other kind of life advice from wacky morning DJ "Madman" Mike Antony or anybody else from the Q Morning Zoo Crew (ref Onion.com/content/node/29372). To do so would indeed be Darwin Award-bait idiocy.
Indeed it would.

However, I find it is best if Darwin candidates do their idiotic suicide, unassisted.
I'm not so sure education helps stupid people. I'm envisioning here, hypothetically mind you, a gaggle of sissy-sport players at an elite southern university hanging out on a Saturday afternoon cooking a bowl and drinking beer and somehow drunkenly coming up with the way wack notion of having a totally bitchin' party with, like, a DJ and maybe a couple of totally gross fat ugly black strippers just for laughs!"

Followed, of course, by high fives and soul daps and cheers all around for coming up with such a great idea.
I'm pretty sure education is vital.

[FarmallMTA]

Callous? Yes. Witty? No.
Blushes. So ashamed. Thank you Miss Simpson, for showing me the error of my ways. Can I contribute to your "Help the Bangledeshi Children" fund to make up for it now?

LOL.

[Darth Rotor]

I'm envisioning here, hypothetically mind you, a gaggle of sissy-sport players at an elite southern university hanging out on a Saturday afternoon cooking a bowl and drinking beer and somehow drunkenly coming up with the way wack notion of having a totally bitchin' party with, like, a DJ and maybe a couple of totally gross fat ugly black strippers just for laughs!"

Interesting comparison on bad judgment, but I must ask:

You ever play lacrosse?

There was a very famous NFL great, Jim Brown, who played two sports at Syracuse: Football and Lacrosse. I'd not call lacrosse a sissy sport. FWIW, Brosn was allegedly even better at LaCrosse than at football, though that may be some revisionist from Sports Illustrated sorts.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Darwin??! Or some @$$holes at a radio station who took advantage of a woman who happened to want to please her children, but did not have quite enough money to do so!

Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.

[DanishDynamite]

I think calling the woman stupid is a bit of an assumption.

Was what she did the most brilliant thing? Of course not. But, for what it's worth, I have never heard of water intoxication, in all of my 52 years. And most people, I believe, would assume that a contest held by a local station (radio or TV) would be safe. Hell, I would consider drinking water to be safer than say, seeing how many hot dogs you can eat in a given period of time!

I think the question now is what liability does the station have? Did they do any checking on the possible downsides to their contest? I suspect we'll find out when the lawsuits start.

As for the woman, she was trying to do something for her kids. It was drinking water! Hell, she carried them for 9 months, and then gave them birth! Neither of which I'm sure I would be willing to do! Drinking water should have been as easy as...well drinking water!

I think it's a sad story, and I regret the loss of her life, and the loss to her family and friends.
I am so sick of people blaming others for their own lack. Jesus Christ, every individual on this planet is constantly being affected by all sorts of external input. It behooves every person to sort the crap from the kernel.

[FarmallMTA]

Interesting comparison on bad judgment, but I must ask:

You ever play lacrosse?

There was a very famous NFL great, Jim Brown, who played two sports at Syracuse: Football and Lacrosse. I'd not call lacrosse a sissy sport. FWIW, Brosn was allegedly even better at LaCrosse than at football, though that may be some revisionist from Sports Illustrated sorts.

DR

LOL. Got some kind of inferiority complex about it?

[DanishDynamite]

Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.
Exactly!

(Though this topic might be broader, in the end that is what is comes down to)

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Got some kind of inferiority complex about it?
No, I tried my hand at it freshman year in college (I completely sucked at it, got involved too late in life) and I used to watch the Navy Lacrosse team rather frequently when I was there.

You call lacrosse a sissy sport? You haven't a clue.

DR

[a_unique_person]

Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission.

I think if you organise a stunt like this, you are taking on the responsibility that it's safe.

[This Guy]

I am so sick of people blaming others for their own lack. Jesus Christ, every individual on this planet is constantly being affected by all sorts of external input. It behooves every person to sort the crap from the kernel.

IMHO when you slip on someone's walkway, on a toy or ice patch that was clearly visible, and you sue, that is blaming someone else for your lack of attention.

If you buy a jug of bleach, and accidental pour it into your coffee water, and die from drinking it, that's your fault.

In MOST cases of product liability that I know of, I side with the manufacture/distributer. This is not a case of someone doing something stupid on their own. It was something (apparently stupid, but it surprises me that the consequences were fatal!) promoted on the air by a radio station! No one hearing that contest advertised appeared to feel there was anything dangerous about it! It's not like she was answering an obscure add in the back of some mostly unread tabloid. It was broadcast on the local airwaves for everyone to hear and evaluate. It would be, again, IMHO normal to expect that such a thing would be safe.

I don't know how prevalent water intoxication is. Based solely on the fact that I have never heard of it, I'm assuming it doesn't happen every day. My question is did the radio station do any checks about the safety of the contestants for the contest they were going to run? If they did, and whomever would be the appropriate reference for such things, gave the OK, then I would consider what happened to the lady a fluke. A sad fluke, but a fluke. If the station did not check to determine if there was the possibility of harm to the contestants, then I think there very well could be a justified liability suit in the wings.

Obviously there are not that many facts available now. Time will tell.

[FarmallMTA]

No, I tried my hand at it freshman year in college (I completely sucked at it, got involved too late in life) and I used to watch the Navy Lacrosse team rather frequently when I was there.

You call lacrosse a sissy sport? You haven't a clue.

DR

Dude, you're arguing in circles with yourself. Nobody said anything about *removes hat, places across heart reverently* lacrosse *spoken with catch in voice, moist doe-eyes, trembling lip and reverence on my worshipful visage*.

Dang! Happy now?

[JamesM]

She was an idiot. The Darwin prize is well deserved, if she makes the nomination.

Having already had children, she's not actually removed herself from the gene pool.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think if you organise a stunt like this, you are taking on the responsibility that it's safe.

I think if you participate in a stunt like this, you are taking on the responsibility that it's safe.

[DanishDynamite]

IMHO when you slip on someone's walkway, on a toy or ice patch that was clearly visible, and you sue, that is blaming someone else for your lack of attention.
Indeed it is and it should be generally discouraged to blame anyone but yourself.
If you buy a jug of bleach, and accidental pour it into your coffee water, and die from drinking it, that's your fault.

In MOST cases of product liability that I know of, I side with the manufacture/distributer. This is not a case of someone doing something stupid on their own. It was something (apparently stupid, but it surprises me that the consequences were fatal!) promoted on the air by a radio station! No one hearing that contest advertised appeared to feel there was anything dangerous about it! It's not like she was answering an obscure add in the back of some mostly unread tabloid. It was broadcast on the local airwaves for everyone to hear and evaluate. It would be, again, IMHO normal to expect that such a thing would be safe.
It would, IMHO, like everything in life, be up to the individual to assess the pros and cons of following some advice.
I don't know how prevalent water intoxication is. Based solely on the fact that I have never heard of it, I'm assuming it doesn't happen every day. My question is did the radio station do any checks about the safety of the contestants for the contest they were going to run? If they did, and whomever would be the appropriate reference for such things, gave the OK, then I would consider what happened to the lady a fluke. A sad fluke, but a fluke. If the station did not check to determine if there was the possibility of harm to the contestants, then I think there very well could be a justified liability suit in the wings.
In a perfect world they would have no liability whatsoever. Suppose they had a contest where the first person to kill himself by jumping off a particular bridge, got a prize. So what?
Obviously there are not that many facts available now. Time will tell.
Time will tell what?

[DanishDynamite]

Having already had children, she's not actually removed herself from the gene pool.
Excellent point! She was too stupid to even be a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

[DanishDynamite]

I think if you participate in a stunt like this, you are taking on the responsibility that it's safe.
I think if you participate in anything in life, it is up to you to judge its safeness.

[FarmallMTA]

Having already had children, she's not actually removed herself from the gene pool.

True. But along the lines of the Nature vs. Nurture debate about fitness of offspring, at least now the kids have a chance to be raised by somebody whose IQ exceeds that of your average eggplant.

Nurture now gets its chance to strut its stuff.

[This Guy]

SNIP

In a perfect world they would have no liability whatsoever. Suppose they had a contest where the first person to kill himself by jumping off a particular bridge, got a prize. So what?

Well, at least the possible consequences would be more obvious :)

This contest was not billed as a contest to see who could kill themselves by drinking too much water though. If that was the objective, it should have been stated in the rules ;)

Time will tell what?

Hopefully, time will tell whether or not the station did any checks on the potential for injury from this contest.

I also consider there is a possibility that this woman had some (perhaps undiagnosed) medical condition that made her death more likely. I suspect we will hear, if such is the case, as time goes on.

[FarmallMTA]

Indeed it would.

I'm pretty sure education is vital.

Nahhhhhh!

Stupid people, having inherently poor reasoning and memory, remain stupid until they die. Then they're stupid corpses. Ignorant people, due to a paucity of facts, figures and examples in their gray matter, manage to off themselves or their potential through sheer lack of knowledge.

Education helps ignorance. Education CAN'T help stupidity. Overriding your basic survival instincts to drink a bazillion gallons of water is stupid. It gets you on "Jackass, the movie" maybe, but you'd still be stupid. Alive or dead.

[fuelair]

It's very sad, and frankly, most people probably don't know you can die from drinking too much water.

I suspected that when I read about this in local paper. A rather large number of people do not know things of that nature - which is one of the reasons wooism survives - but is also just plain dangerous. On the other... nobody knows everything - why I keep telling my students to learn whatever they have the opportunity to.

[DanishDynamite]

Nahhhhhh!

Stupid people, having inherently poor reasoning and memory, remain stupid until they die. Then they're stupid corpses. Ignorant people, due to a paucity of facts, figures and examples in their gray matter, manage to off themselves or their potential through sheer lack of knowledge.

Education helps ignorance. Education CAN'T help stupidity. Overriding your basic survival instincts to drink a bazillion gallons of water is stupid. It gets you on "Jackass, the movie" maybe, but you'd still be stupid. Alive or dead.
There is much in what you say, but nevertheless education will raise the average. Education will help you not win the Darwin Award.

[FarmallMTA]

There is much in what you say, but nevertheless education will raise the average. Education will help you not win the Darwin Award.

Hmmm. You might have something there. I haven't won it yet. Yet. Maybe the education thing helped. We'll see.

;)

[This Guy]

Hmmm. You might have something there. I haven't won it yet. Yet. Maybe the education thing helped. We'll see.

;)

I put my application in last week. Still waiting on the results :crazy:

[FarmallMTA]

I put my application in last week. Still waiting on the results :crazy:

The competition is stiff (ha, ha... stiff! get it? Stiff! Oh, boy, I just kill myself! hey there's another one!!!!) and the potter's field is crowded with candidates (get it? potter's field! hoo boy, that's a good 'un!)! Don't hold your breath waiting (ohhhhh, lordy the inner laughter HURTS)!

ROFLMAO!

[Pyrrho]

Water intoxication is not widely thought of as a potential problem. I'd call this an accidental death.

What was not accidental is that the radio station, and other people, thought it entertaining and funny to require people to "hold their water". That's torture for monetary gain. Sad, very sad, and somewhat despicable. Also sad is that people were willing to subject themselves to humiliation and pain for a few lousy bucks...although many parents would do anything for their kids, as the unfortunate victim tried to do. I feel bad for her children.

Had the radio station used something like Gatorade instead of water, she might not have died. The problem is not so much "intoxication" as it is sodium depletion.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/watertox.html

[DanishDynamite]

Well, at least the possible consequences would be more obvious :)

This contest was not billed as a contest to see who could kill themselves by drinking too much water though. If that was the objective, it should have been stated in the rules ;)
Are you a lawyer? Or do you just feel that commen sense is overrated?
Hopefully, time will tell whether or not the station did any checks on the potential for injury from this contest.
Why should they?
I also consider there is a possibility that this woman had some (perhaps undiagnosed) medical condition that made her death more likely. I suspect we will hear, if such is the case, as time goes on.
Perhaps we will. So what?

[Ian Osborne]

I really feel for the poor woman's kids. It's bad enough going through life without your mother, but to know she died trying to win you a games console must be awful. :(

I agree with the people who are defending the victim here. The fact that you can die through drinking too much water is not common knowledge, and is certainly not common sense. After all, the competition organisers seemed not to know...

[FarmallMTA]

Water intoxication is not widely thought of as a potential problem. I'd call this an accidental death.

What was not accidental is that the radio station, and other people, thought it entertaining and funny to require people to "hold their water". That's torture for monetary gain. Sad, very sad, and somewhat despicable. Also sad is that people were willing to subject themselves to humiliation and pain for a few lousy bucks...although many parents would do anything for their kids, as the unfortunate victim tried to do. I feel bad for her children.

Not entirely disrespecting your feelings here, man, but Dang! Lighten up, already. The woman died of self-inflicted piss poisoning. I mean, how many times does a comedy opportunity like this come along? The Bob and Tom's are going to be having a field day with it! I can hardly wait!

[DanishDynamite]

Water intoxication is not widely thought of as a potential problem. I'd call this an accidental death.

What was not accidental is that the radio station, and other people, thought it entertaining and funny to require people to "hold their water". That's torture for monetary gain.
No, that's weeding out anyone impecile enough to follow the advice of a radio DJ.
Sad, very sad, and somewhat despicable. Also sad is that people were willing to subject themselves to humiliation and pain for a few lousy bucks...although many parents would do anything for their kids, as the unfortunate victim tried to do. I feel bad for her children.
I feel bad for her kids too. Ce la vie.
Had the radio station used something like Gatorade instead of water, she might not have died. The problem is not so much "intoxication" as it is sodium depletion.

http://www.alpharubicon.com/med/watertox.html
They could have used air. It would have made no difference.

[This Guy]

Are you a lawyer? Or do you just feel that commen sense is overrated?

Why should they?

Perhaps we will. So what?

I think I've stated my views fairly clearly above. Rather than get into a back and forth, saying the same things, I'll rest on my above post :)

But, no I'm no lawyer, and generally don't care for them (unless I need them to sort through some legal mess that lawyers got implemented in the first place ;-)

[fuelair]

No kidding. I'm not aware of any MENSA members who take their investment advice, family planning advice, romance advice, career advice, or any other kind of life advice from wacky morning DJ "Madman" Mike Antony or anybody else from the Q Morning Zoo Crew (ref Onion.com/content/node/29372). To do so would indeed be Darwin Award-bait idiocy.

.


Having been at a number of Mensa meetings some years back (I had the test results putting me in the category - I'm a great test taker), I ultimately and with no quibble decided I really wasn't interested. One of the points I noted (though the exact names would be different) is I had every reason to suspect that a good number of the members would indeed have gotten advice that way.

Or - knowledge and wisdom are related in certain ways but are not the same thing. A lack of either may kill you and having the lack of either you may still pass through life largely unscathed.

This woman lacked knowledge and I suspect the station staff did also, but as pro-Darwin awards as I am, I can't find the ability/evidence here to show that she should get one.

[UserGoogol]

I thought that was called "drowning?" One of mankind's basic avoidance instincts? As in, "stay away from the water! You hear me young man? Don't you dare drown or sure as the Pope says Mass on roller skates I'll cut a switch and tan your little 8 yr. old hide!"

And don't, like, totally bore me with the distinction between inhaling water thereby preventing blood oxygenation vs. imbibition resulting in solute dilution of cellular contents and membrane rupture. Yawn.

It's hardly an academic distinction. People don't think water is dangerous, they think that not being able to breathe is dangerous. If the water is in your stomach, then obviously your ability to breath will not be hampered, so where's the danger? I can think of absolutely no reason why it should be considered obvious that consuming massive amounts of water in a short amount of time should be bad for you. The idea that too much water is dangerous depends on fully understanding some slightly non-intuitive biological facts.

[DanishDynamite]

I think I've stated my views fairly clearly above. Rather than get into a back and forth, saying the same things, I'll rest on my above post :)

But, no I'm no lawyer, and generally don't care for them (unless I need them to sort through some legal mess that lawyers got implemented in the first place ;-)
Fair enough!

[FarmallMTA]

It's hardly an academic distinction. People don't think water is dangerous, they think that not being able to breathe is dangerous. If the water is in your stomach, then obviously your ability to breath will not be hampered, so where's the danger? I can think of absolutely no reason why it should be considered obvious that consuming massive amounts of water in a short amount of time should be bad for you. The idea that too much water is dangerous depends on fully understanding some slightly non-intuitive biological facts.

Well, I don't know about your birth, but first they tonged me out of the birth canal. Then they spanked my bottom which I richly deserved for making my mother sick in the mornings for 9 whole months. Then they put some kind of drops that stung a bit in my eyes. Then they gave the bill to my Dad, who still talks about how much I set him back. THEN...

THEN they told me, and I accurately quote from my distinct recollection, "Dose makes the poison, boy! Dose makes the poison! Don't forget now!"

Or maybe that was in high school chemistry. I forget. I was kind of dozing through both experiences so I may be crossing the two up.

Anyways, you learn that pretty early in life. Dose makes the poison.

So despite all the sobsistering going on around here, I'm still not all broken up over this dimbulb's failure to Grok how she should avoid drinking Lake Superior to win some fad gameboy gadget.

[DanishDynamite]

It's hardly an academic distinction. People don't think water is dangerous, they think that not being able to breathe is dangerous. If the water is in your stomach, then obviously your ability to breath will not be hampered, so where's the danger? I can think of absolutely no reason why it should be considered obvious that consuming massive amounts of water in a short amount of time should be bad for you. The idea that too much water is dangerous depends on fully understanding some slightly non-intuitive biological facts.
Yes, perhaps it does require a minimum of education to realize this.

[dann]

I am so sick of people blaming others for their own lack. Jesus Christ, every individual on this planet is constantly being affected by all sorts of external input. It behooves every person to sort the crap from the kernel.
Nobody can take advantage of you without your permission. Exactly!
Wish you had told the truth to me.The poor woman's children probably wish that the radio people had told her the truth about water poisoning. Apparently they were too dumb to check it out, though, but Darwin didn't punish them anyway.

[DanishDynamite]

The poor woman's children probably wish that the radio people had told her the truth about water poisoning. Apparently they were too dumb to check it out, though, but Darwin didn't punish them anyway.
Is there some point to your babbling?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What was not accidental is that the radio station, and other people, thought it entertaining and funny to require people to "hold their water". That's torture for monetary gain.

No one forced her to do anything.

[dann]

Yes, DD, you are very busy trying to portray the poor victim of this radio prank as very stupid because people should never blame "others for their own lack" and nobody can take advantage of you if you don't want them to, and yet you complain when somebody with Marx and Brecht in his sig line doesn't tell you explicitly that he's a commie!
The irony!
(One shouldn't poke fun at people's spelling, but you didn't notice that one either!)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The fact that you can die through drinking too much water is not common knowledge, and is certainly not common sense. After all, the competition organisers seemed not to know...

That is an important point. Everyone seems to want to absolve the "victim" from all blame because it is not common knowledge, but don't want to give the organizers the same benefit.

[dann]

No one forced her to do anything.Did anybody say that she was forced?

[dann]

That is an important point. Everyone seems to want to absolve the "victim" from all blame because it is not common knowledge, but don't want to give the organizers the same benefit.It's better to blame the one who dies than the organizer of the prank, right? Remember your own opening post?!

[Ian Osborne]

That is an important point. Everyone seems to want to absolve the "victim" from all blame because it is not common knowledge, but don't want to give the organizers the same benefit.

Don't you think the organisers had a duty of care to the participants?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's is better to blame the one who dies than the organizer of the prank, right? Remember your own opening post?!

If by "better" you mean more accurate, then yes.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Don't you think the organisers had a duty of care to the participants?

Within reason. There is no evidence to show they didn't.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Did anybody say that she was forced?

It was implied.

[dann]

No, it wasn't.

[FarmallMTA]

Within reason. There is no evidence to show they didn't.

Oh come on! Next you're going to be saying that Tom Sawyer should give back the loot he was paid by the boys he convinced to paint the fence for him. Like, full disclosure of how stupid you are is now mandatory, ethical, AND gets you hot dates to boot?

Sheesh.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was.

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, DD, you are very busy trying to portray the poor victim of this radio prank as very stupid because people should never blame "others for their own lack" and nobody can take advantage of you if you don't want them to, and yet you complain when somebody with Marx and Brecht in his sig line doesn't tell you explicitly that he's a commie!
The irony!
(One shouldn't poke fun at people's spelling, but you didn't notice that one either!)
I fail to see the irony. Oh wait....yes...I think I see it now. There is indeed great irony in someone who wants no laws at all implying that he want's some protection for stupid people.

Sorry, it took me a while to understand your blather.

[DanishDynamite]

Don't you think the organisers had a duty of care to the participants?

Obviously not.

[This Guy]

No one forced her to do anything.
Did anybody say that she was forced?
It was implied.
No, it wasn't.
Yes, it was.

:catfight:

Sorry, couldn't resist :D

[FarmallMTA]

Having been at a number of Mensa meetings some years back (I had the test results putting me in the category - I'm a great test taker), I ultimately and with no quibble decided I really wasn't interested. One of the points I noted (though the exact names would be different) is I had every reason to suspect that a good number of the members would indeed have gotten advice that way.

Yeah, well, it's not fair to paint all MENSA chapters with the tarbrush of your experience with the one at Harvard. I mean, you're not exactly playing varsity there. All those Professor Longhair types? Eeessshhhhh. As Twain said, we'd be better off having a Congress made up of names randomly chosen from the Boston phonebook than of the professors at Harvard. LOL. Dang I love gigging 'em!

And I'm a great test taker too. I copied off the smart oriental kid next to me. That's how I got in. Shoot. Weren't nuthin' to it!

[Darth Rotor]

And I'm a great test taker too. I copied off the smart oriental kid next to me. That's how I got in. Shoot. Weren't nuthin' to it!
I am having fun deciphering your handle.

It seems you went to Harvard, and now you work for the MTA. Let me tell you a story about a man named Charlie . . . ;)

DR

[FarmallMTA]

I am having fun deciphering your handle.

It seems you went to Harvard, and now you work for the MTA. Let me tell you a story about a man named Charlie . . . ;)

DR

Well, there you are. You found me out. ;)

I majored in Middle Latin at Fair Harvard. ;) And now I have an exciting and responsible position in the fast-paced but socially conscious field of global warming alleviation through mass transit solutions for interlinking and networking people in their professional and personal spheres. In other words, in non-Harvard speak, I drive a big ol' god*mned bus for the Mass Transit Authority, third shift. ;)

And I belong to the union. So, one smart word out of you and it's to the moon, Alice, to the moon! See? ;)

[Esperdome]

Farmall MTA was a tractor produced in the 1950's It was a Super M with a torque amplifier transmission.

Be careful, there are some 1486's running around here.
Not me, I'm more of an AC WD-45. :p

[Skeptic]

Darwin??! Or some @$$holes at a radio station who took advantage of a woman who happened to want to please her children, but did not have quite enough money to do so!

if she knowingly risked her life to buy her children a stupid video game, she was stupid, no matter how poor she was or how much she wanted to please them.

However, it's almost certainly a case of ignorance, not of stupidity: neither her nor her childrn realized she was taking any great risk with what she was doing. For that matter, I doubt the people who originated the challange in the radio station did.

[JamesDillon]

No, it wasn't.

Yes, it was, unless you think there's such a thing as consensual torture. There isn't, and the idea that this was "torture for monetary gain" is absurd and dilutes (no pun intended) the meaning of the word "torture."

That said, the radio organizers most certainly owed a duty of care to the decedent. Her next-of-kin has a very good wrongful death case, although the station probably required participants to sign a liability waiver.

On that note, I read in some article on this event that the organizers encouraged the participants to stop if they felt sick, or something to that effect. That suggests to me that the organizers knew that it was possible to die of water intoxication, but held this event anyway. Regardless of legal liability, that suggests to me a high degree of moral culpability for this woman's death.

Or maybe that was in high school chemistry. I forget. I was kind of dozing through both experiences so I may be crossing the two up.

Anyways, you learn that pretty early in life. Dose makes the poison.
I would think that's quite a large difference between learning that something is dangerous in high school chemistry, and knowing it instinctively from birth. It's not particularly surprising that this woman may not have known that water intoxication can be dangerous, and it's simply ridiculous to suggest that the danger is as obvious as drowning.

[FarmallMTA]

Farmall MTA was a tractor produced in the 1950's It was a Super M with a torque amplifier transmission.

Be careful, there are some 1486's running around here.
Not me, I'm more of an AC WD-45. :p

Hey not bad, esperdome! More specifically, made just one year, in '54. Then the same tractor was given a number instead of a name (sounds like a Johnny Cash prison lament, eh?) and soldiered on gamely until IH wrecked their name with the POS 560 in '58... a hot to trot tractor with the old SuperM rear end. But enough about my girlfriend's butt.

And how'd you know that 1486 is both the PIN and Password to my multimillion dollar Swiss bank account in Banque De Mouffettes de Geneve? Under my nomme de guerre of Wilhelm Klink?

Man. You do spiritual healings, too?

Yo! The WD-45 is wack in front of the AC little round baler. I loved the orange roofed-ones with the pitman arm. So much fun to change them out and have them break again right away. More profanity generating than the later white-roofed ones, yes?

But back to water poisoning. Does Dimbulb's life insurance pay double indemnity on that? I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that meeting at Aetna!

[Unnamed]

Over 70 posts and nobody mentioned the website warning about the dangers and toxicity of dihydrogen monoxide (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#SYMPTOMS)?

[dann]

Article and video about the Sacramento incident here (http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=23350).

[Architect]

Water toxication is unusual and not widely known, but there were a number of cases in the 90s when youngsters drunk large quantities after taking E.

The legal situation in the UK would be quite clear; the radio station had a duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those participating in the event. Given that water toxicity is a known health risk, it should have included appropriate restrictions.

For those who think the victim was solely responsible, although primarily concerned with product quality you shoulod acquaint yourself with Donoghue Vs Stevenson, one of the most legal liability cases in legal history.

[latent aaaack]

I'm flashing back to this board's reaction to Irwin's death from perusing this thread. It's reminiscient of religious fundamentalism, the fanatically emotionless negativity that passes for skepticism occasionally.

[dann]

Most Danes would consider this risk even though it may just be a myth. Children are still warned against this by concerned parents - how is that for Darwin?:
Tycho died on October 24, 1601, eleven days after straining his bladder during a banquet(drinking contest). It had been said that to leave the banquet before it concluded would be the height of bad manners, and so he remained. His bladder, stretched to its limit, exploded; however, this is regarded as impossible by most physicians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

[chocolatepossum]

I don't believe this woman was an idiot, but even if she was I don't think that she or her children would deserve any less sympathy for what has happened to them. I find the whole idea of the Darwin awards to be pretty distasteful. In my opinion it's one thing to joke about death and quite another to find the fact that someone has died to be uproariously funny.

[brodski]

I think if you participate in a stunt like this, you are taking on the responsibility that it's safe.

Well then lets just do away with all commercial responsibility. You eat in a restaurant, the your taking on the responsibility that you won't get food poisoning. Or you buy a car, and you take on the responsibility that the breaks won't fail the first time you do 70mph. Welcome to libertopia.

[Fell]

Water intoxication is not a myth and it is not a simple process such as drowning. When you drink a large amount of water (excess of 2 liters) quickly the sodium density in your blood drops, causing potentially fatal changes in your brain chemistry. Ever wondered why sports drinks contain sodium?

[Architect]

Well then lets just do away with all commercial responsibility. You eat in a restaurant, the your taking on the responsibility that you won't get food poisoning. Or you buy a car, and you take on the responsibility that the breaks won't fail the first time you do 70mph. Welcome to libertopia.


Donoghue vs Stevenson. One of the most important liability decisions in legal history.

[brodski]

Donoghue vs Stevenson. One of the most important liability decisions in legal history.

From a civil point of view yes, however given my time working for the HSE, I tend to look at these things from a criminal, rather than civil point of view.
If this had have happened in the UK the radio station would face prosecution under s3 HSWA for failing, so far as is reasonably practicable, to protect the health, safety and welfare of "other persons" affected by their undertaking. Getting the contestants to sign wavers would almost certainly not protect the radio station from this prosecution. They could also face a charge of "corporate manslaughter", but that's notoriously difficult to prosecute.

[Camillus]

I've seen water intoxication four times in my career.

The first time was in the late 1980's and was a guru who drank too much during a fast.

The second was a girl who drank excessively after she took an ecstasy tablet. Not uncommon as someone else has pointed out.

The third was a gentleman with psychogenic polydipsia secondary to delusions of persecution related to the government putting toxins in his fillings. He drank the contents of a dentist's water cooler in six hours while waiting to have his fillings removed.

The fourth is my personal favourite and involved a chap who decided to run the London marathon. In his case though run was somewhat subjective and consisted more of a gentle amble. He did however follow the organisers advice and drink plenty of water on the way round the course. In fact he stopped at every watering station and downed several cups of the stuff. When the paramedics found him stumbling around near the finish they thought he was exhausted and dehydrated so they put in an iv line and gave him a litre of normal saline, which probably did not help the situation in the short term.

I don't think it's fair to accuse the woman who died in this situation of stupidity. It's extremely unlikely that anyone would ever have mentioned that drinking too much water can be dangerous and it is not an intuitive concept.

[This Guy]

My understanding of US cases indicates that the wavier would have no effect on a liability suit in a case like this. I'm sure if (when) a suit is brought, the wavier will be shown as evidence for the defense. I'm also pretty sure it will be pretty much ignored.

The fact that the station told the contestants "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health in risk." really says nothing to me. It COULD mean that they were aware of the risk of water intoxication, but I get the impression, right or wrong, that it was just a general warning. From what I understand the lady didn't show signs of a problem until after the contest.

IMHO the station should have consulted with at least an MD on the potential risk involved. They should have had a medically trained person in attendance, at least a nurse, if not an MD. The contestants should have been told about water intoxication. They should have used a sports drink, or something that would have helped balance the water with sodium to prevent or at least lesson the chance of something like this happening. And before leaving, the contestants should have been told of the warning signs of water intoxication, and given instructions on what to do if the signs were noticed. Perhaps some salt tablets would have been a good idea also, though I think those have lost favor due to high blood pressure issues.

From the article and video in post #74, by Dann, it appears likely that multiple contestants got sick from the excessive water intake. At least the guy that was interviewed, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that others were affected also.

This is, IMHO a sad situation from several points of view. First, there is a woman dead, and all the issues there.

Second, there is a group of people at a radio station that tried to have what I'm sure they thought would be a fun contest. I'm confidant that there was no ill intent. None the less, their contest resulted in the death of a person. Now the folks there have to live with that. I know I would feel like crap in a case like that.

The contest the station had, no doubt with the hope that it would boost their audience, will likely decrease their audience, at least in the short term. Pure speculation on my part of course.

The station will most likely, and rightfully in my opinion, be sued for wrongful death, or whatever applies in a case like this (negligent homicide?).

The fixes for this (consulting a doctor before, having one on hand during, Gatorade or some sports drink) wouldn't have cost them too much I wouldn't think. Maybe a couple more hundred dollars. No more than $500 - $1000 I would think. Would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. And would probably have saved this woman's life.

In my opinion, the station was the more ignorant of those involved. I think they had a responsibility to insure the contest was safe for the contestants, and it appears they failed to even check what that entailed.

Of course, if it comes out that the wavier actually warned of a water intoxication possibility, or if there were steps taken, but not mentioned in the articles, then my opinion might change. But I suspect if there's any major changes to this story, it will be from the full autopsy report, when it's completed. Those results of course, could change things drastically, but I doubt it.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree, particularly when it's part of an organised event - presumably she trusted the radio station to not run a competition that could put her at risk.

I don't think there's anything funny or ironic about this story at all, and the only stupid people are the competition organisers.

Exactly, especialy with the not too long ago death of a frat guy who died from drinking too much water, if they had paid attention they would have known about the risks.

[ponderingturtle]

And I guess that the other contestants and the listeners who didn't interfere were all either clueless idiots who also deserve to die or cynics who couldn't wait for 'Darwin' to eliminate a few of the idiots?

But don't you understand, they got to watch someone die, and really that is the funniest thing you can ever do.

[JamesDillon]

The station will most likely, and rightfully in my opinion, be sued for wrongful death, or whatever applies in a case like this (negligent homicide?).
Criminal liability is tricker; harder to prove, though perhaps possible in this case if the local prosecutor wanted to pursue it. The civil action would be for wrongful death, and, unless there was a waiver that the court deems sufficient to preclude the lawsuit, I can't imagine that the station could have any valid defense to such a suit.

[ponderingturtle]

It's hardly an academic distinction. People don't think water is dangerous, they think that not being able to breathe is dangerous. If the water is in your stomach, then obviously your ability to breath will not be hampered, so where's the danger? I can think of absolutely no reason why it should be considered obvious that consuming massive amounts of water in a short amount of time should be bad for you. The idea that too much water is dangerous depends on fully understanding some slightly non-intuitive biological facts.

You are not going to explain anything to him, I get the distinct impression that he would, if he saw someone was going to be hit by a train they where unaware of, get out his camera to film the highly amusing event, and not shout a warning to them.

[ponderingturtle]

No one forced her to do anything.

And so say nigerian con scams should be legal? After all they didn't force anyone to give them anything, and you can't cheat an honnest man.

[EGarrett]

The radio station will still be in hot water because as far as I know it's illegal to pay people to hurt themselves.

Another idiotic Howard Stern-ripoff station tried to have a contest where people slapped each other to win concert tickets, they wound up in a lot of legal trouble for the same reason. (and Howard Stern is not stupid enough to have any contest like that)

Yeah, well, it's not fair to paint all MENSA chapters with the tarbrush of your experience with the one at Harvard. I mean, you're not exactly playing varsity there. All those Professor Longhair types? Eeessshhhhh. As Twain said, we'd be better off having a Congress made up of names randomly chosen from the Boston phonebook than of the professors at Harvard. LOL. Dang I love gigging 'em!

And I'm a great test taker too. I copied off the smart oriental kid next to me. That's how I got in. Shoot. Weren't nuthin' to it!The conversation level here is much higher than at the Mensa forums. It seems that criticial thinking and logic lends itself to much more rigorous thinking than simply having a somewhat-high IQ.

[ponderingturtle]

It's better to blame the one who dies than the organizer of the prank, right? Remember your own opening post?!

It is a great idea, it removes all legal contraints on people who promote ineffective medicine and quack treatments. Consumers should expect no protection from anything.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh come on! Next you're going to be saying that Tom Sawyer should give back the loot he was paid by the boys he convinced to paint the fence for him. Like, full disclosure of how stupid you are is now mandatory, ethical, AND gets you hot dates to boot?

Sheesh.

So you are pro con artist I see.

[ponderingturtle]

Water toxication is unusual and not widely known, but there were a number of cases in the 90s when youngsters drunk large quantities after taking E.

It has also killed marathon runners, who are getting quack information about how they need to drink constantly to fight of dehydration. More die from drinking to much than ever did from dehydration.

[ponderingturtle]

Most Danes would consider this risk even though it may just be a myth. Children are still warned against this by concerned parents - how is that for Darwin?:

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

But that is a totally different mechanism of death. She probably would have survived a ruptured bladder. Surgery and antibiotics are wonderful things

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And so say nigerian con scams should be legal? After all they didn't force anyone to give them anything, and you can't cheat an honnest man.

Yes.

[pgwenthold]

Excellent point! She was too stupid to even be a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

The Darwin Award folks gave up arguing about that kind of crap. They don't care if the person beyond child bearing years or not. They are still eligible for Darwin Award.

[ponderingturtle]

The Darwin Award folks gave up arguing about that kind of crap. They don't care if the person beyond child bearing years or not. They are still eligible for Darwin Award.

And she would not be elligible for a darwin award anyway. The dangers of her action are not obvious enough to the average person. They just don't know about the risks of too much water and electrolyte ballance, so it fails to be an obvious lack of judgement needed for a darwin award.

[dann]

Water intoxication is not a myth and it is not a simple process such as drowning. When you drink a large amount of water (excess of 2 liters) quickly the sodium density in your blood drops, causing potentially fatal changes in your brain chemistry. Ever wondered why sports drinks contain sodium?No, you are right. I was referring to the death of Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, allegedly from a ruptured bladder:
Most Danes would consider this risk even though it may just be a myth. Children are still warned against this by concerned parents - how is that for Darwin?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_BraheThe irony is that this myth would probably make a Danish radio station think twice before making a stunt like this, i.e. not because of good science, but because of bad science.
But don't you understand, they got to watch someone die, and really that is the funniest thing you can ever do.Yes, Jackass totally missed the point!
It is a great idea, it removes all legal contraints on people who promote ineffective medicine and quack treatments. Consumers should expect no protection from anything.Consumers, hell, fraud victims are victims of nothing but their own inherent stupidity, and all you Americans have the president you deserve. Every death in Iraq is one more candidate for the Darwin Award.

[This Guy]

Guess the ignore function does come in handy sometimes.

[Pyrrho]

Ok, for the record:

I wrote that she was required to drink water and to not go to the bathroom; that was the requirement to win the contest. That's not the same as "forced", as in the classic water torture, or as in "drink this water or we will beat you".

The dead woman was ignorant; try as we might, we really cannot blame her for being ignorant. The contest organizers were ignorant and stupid. It was their responsibility to run a safe contest, and they failed to meet that obligation.

Requiring people to drink a lot of water and to not go to the bathroom is to require them to subject themselves to pain and humiliation; in this case, for purposes of entertainment. I find it despicable and horrifying.

That said, people with self respect do not subject themselves to pain and humiliation. People who respect other people do not subject them to pain and humiliation, nor do they find it funny or entertaining.

[HarryKeogh]

It could have been worse. Nintendo could have named their system the Poo instead of the Wii.

[This Guy]

It could have been worse. Nintendo could have named their system the Poo instead of the Wii.

OK, I had to laugh at that!


:boxedin:

[billyb1012]

I think calling the woman stupid is a bit of an assumption.

Was what she did the most brilliant thing? Of course not. But, for what it's worth, I have never heard of water intoxication, in all of my 52 years. And most people, I believe, would assume that a contest held by a local station (radio or TV) would be safe. Hell, I would consider drinking water to be safer than say, seeing how many hot dogs you can eat in a given period of time!

I think the question now is what liability does the station have? Did they do any checking on the possible downsides to their contest? I suspect we'll find out when the lawsuits start.

As for the woman, she was trying to do something for her kids. It was drinking water! Hell, she carried them for 9 months, and then gave them birth! Neither of which I'm sure I would be willing to do! Drinking water should have been as easy as...well drinking water!

I think it's a sad story, and I regret the loss of her life, and the loss to her family and friends.


I couldn't agree more.

[dann]

Guess the ignore function does come in handy sometimes.I hope you noticed the irony!

[billyb1012]

My understanding of US cases indicates that the wavier would have no effect on a liability suit in a case like this. I'm sure if (when) a suit is brought, the wavier will be shown as evidence for the defense. I'm also pretty sure it will be pretty much ignored.

The fact that the station told the contestants "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health in risk." really says nothing to me. It COULD mean that they were aware of the risk of water intoxication, but I get the impression, right or wrong, that it was just a general warning. From what I understand the lady didn't show signs of a problem until after the contest.

IMHO the station should have consulted with at least an MD on the potential risk involved. They should have had a medically trained person in attendance, at least a nurse, if not an MD. The contestants should have been told about water intoxication. They should have used a sports drink, or something that would have helped balance the water with sodium to prevent or at least lesson the chance of something like this happening. And before leaving, the contestants should have been told of the warning signs of water intoxication, and given instructions on what to do if the signs were noticed. Perhaps some salt tablets would have been a good idea also, though I think those have lost favor due to high blood pressure issues.

From the article and video in post #74, by Dann, it appears likely that multiple contestants got sick from the excessive water intake. At least the guy that was interviewed, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that others were affected also.

This is, IMHO a sad situation from several points of view. First, there is a woman dead, and all the issues there.

Second, there is a group of people at a radio station that tried to have what I'm sure they thought would be a fun contest. I'm confidant that there was no ill intent. None the less, their contest resulted in the death of a person. Now the folks there have to live with that. I know I would feel like crap in a case like that.

The contest the station had, no doubt with the hope that it would boost their audience, will likely decrease their audience, at least in the short term. Pure speculation on my part of course.

The station will most likely, and rightfully in my opinion, be sued for wrongful death, or whatever applies in a case like this (negligent homicide?).

The fixes for this (consulting a doctor before, having one on hand during, Gatorade or some sports drink) wouldn't have cost them too much I wouldn't think. Maybe a couple more hundred dollars. No more than $500 - $1000 I would think. Would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. And would probably have saved this woman's life.

In my opinion, the station was the more ignorant of those involved. I think they had a responsibility to insure the contest was safe for the contestants, and it appears they failed to even check what that entailed.

Of course, if it comes out that the wavier actually warned of a water intoxication possibility, or if there were steps taken, but not mentioned in the articles, then my opinion might change. But I suspect if there's any major changes to this story, it will be from the full autopsy report, when it's completed. Those results of course, could change things drastically, but I doubt it.


I also agree with all that, except the part about a decrease in audience share. I'd bet that more people will tune in now, if only to hear the station's spin on why it did nothing wrong. There's no such thing as bad publicity, they say...

[FarmallMTA]

So you are pro con artist I see.

Okay, I'm pro-con artist AND I'm also pro-"people get to shoot the con artist who tries to rip them off". Cool that how when you start scrubbing all the Nanny State laws things have a way of fixing themselves, eh?

A tad more seriously, all you crybaby bedwetting sucker-for-a-sob-story sensitive types who are just all broken up over this vacuum-skulled dame's self-inflicted death... you've got yourselves a little problem.

On the one hand, some of you are traumatized and heartbroken because water poisoning is NOT intuitively understood or generally known therefore she's not responsible for her actions. On the other hand, others of you are boo-hooing into your lace hankies because the big bad mean old radio station should have known what is commonly known to everybody, that water dilution of the body has numerous deleterious and potentially fatal effects. Therefore, wacky morning DJ Mike "Madman" Antony and the Q-Morning Zoo Crew is grossly negligent and responsible.

The funny part is that you two types are agreeing with each other. She's a put-upon Joan-of-Arc for our times. At the very least you two types need to get together and decide which way you're gonna go... either it IS or ISN'T known. But you CAN'T have it both ways at once. See? Mutually-exclusive posits may not be simultaneously held without incurring cognitive dissonance which must be eventually resolved. So start resolving, already!

The thread of commonality between you two types of sobsisters is not logic or rationality. Rather, it's the reflexive desire to absolve the "little people" of responsibility for conducting their lives in a fit and healthy way. With you people, it's always the "big guy" who's to blame no matter whatever dumb d*mn thing the "little people" get into.

Sorry, you whine-miners. Reflexive posturing based on "caring," always mugging smugly for the crowd, is NOT critical thinking. It's just sanctimony dressed up as thoughtfulness in a cheap attempt to shame others into not closely evaluating your inconsistent and poorly based religious-y beliefs.

In short, you're saps. Just don't expect the rest of us to fall for it too.:D

[pipelineaudio]

Those of you oh so smug about your water knowledge, calling this lady stupid, probably have no idea of more than a small fraction of the things that can kill you when you get in the water of an ocean say. Dont be so smug

To say its obvious because its like drowning is assinine BTW. It is in NO WAY like drowning

[FarmallMTA]

Those of you oh so smug about your water knowledge, calling this lady stupid, probably have no idea of more than a small fraction of the things that can kill you when you get in the water of an ocean say. Dont be so smug

To say its obvious because its like drowning is assinine BTW. It is in NO WAY like drowning

Sure it is. Here's one way. You got too much water inside you. :D

[Ian Osborne]

No one says the people involved in organising the competition should've just known. Rather, it was their duty to have checked.

[ponderingturtle]

On the one hand, some of you are traumatized and heartbroken because water poisoning is NOT intuitively understood or generally known therefore she's not responsible for her actions. On the other hand, others of you are boo-hooing into your lace hankies because the big bad mean old radio station should have known what is commonly known to everybody, that water dilution of the body has numerous deleterious and potentially fatal effects. Therefore, wacky morning DJ Mike "Madman" Antony and the Q-Morning Zoo Crew is grossly negligent and responsible.

So common wisdom is now the standard for professional negligence? You think that if it makes sense to the average person it should be legal for professionals to do things that way?

You are removing all kinds of liability that your car or house or anything is built right, becuase after all if it makes sense to the layperson why should a professional say different. You neatly get rid of houseing codes and all safety codes.

The funny part is that you two types are agreeing with each other. She's a put-upon Joan-of-Arc for our times. At the very least you two types need to get together and decide which way you're gonna go... either it IS or ISN'T known. But you CAN'T have it both ways at once. See? Mutually-exclusive posits may not be simultaneously held without incurring cognitive dissonance which must be eventually resolved. So start resolving, already!

Ah so just because professionals understand something that means that everyone understands it? Why do doctors go to med school for so long, the word of someone on the street is just as informed as they are.

The fundamental thing you are missing here is this, you might be able to build a treehouse for your kids how ever you want, but if you start building them for others, you are now the one responcible to see that they are built properly not the parents who are paying you. As you want it, it is the parents job to make sure that what you build is safe and structuraly sound.

The thread of commonality between you two types of sobsisters is not logic or rationality. Rather, it's the reflexive desire to absolve the "little people" of responsibility for conducting their lives in a fit and healthy way. With you people, it's always the "big guy" who's to blame no matter whatever dumb d*mn thing the "little people" get into.

And you see no responcibility for the actions of others. Manson should be let out of prison after all he never killed anyone himself.

[ponderingturtle]

Sure it is. Here's one way. You got too much water inside you. :D

Yea, just like people should know cars are dangerous because you can get run over by them and killed, and it is so much like running them in an enclosed space, they are just obviously dangerous in exactly the same way.

[ponderingturtle]

No one says the people involved in organising the competition should've just known. Rather, it was their duty to have checked.

Exactly.

[FarmallMTA]

No one says the people involved in organising the competition should've just known. Rather, it was their duty to have checked.

Not bad. Now here's another one. Why isn't it HER duty to have checked? I mean, it IS her life right? Surely it wouldn't be too much trouble for her to wikipedia "if I drink Lake Huron down at the Q in an attempt to win a fad toy will I, like, totally die or what?"

I did. And the wikipedia result is, "H*ll yes! What... are you stupid?"

[brodski]

I should warn you that this pile of straw (badly shaped to resemble something vaguely human) constitutes a fire hazard.

Okay, I'm pro-con artist AND I'm also pro-"people get to shoot the con artist who tries to rip them off". Cool that how when you start scrubbing all the Nanny State laws things have a way of fixing themselves, eh?
No, not only do you defend con artists, you also advocate extra-judicial killings. It's not the "nanny sate" you want rid of, its the State altogether.


A tad more seriously, all you crybaby bedwetting sucker-for-a-sob-story sensitive types who are just all broken up over this vacuum-skulled dame's self-inflicted death... you've got yourselves a little problem.

On the one hand, some of you are traumatized and heartbroken because water poisoning is NOT intuitively understood or generally known therefore she's not responsible for her actions. On the other hand, others of you are boo-hooing into your lace hankies because the big bad mean old radio station should have known what is commonly known to everybody, that water dilution of the body has numerous deleterious and potentially fatal effects. Therefore, wacky morning DJ Mike "Madman" Antony and the Q-Morning Zoo Crew is grossly negligent and responsible.
Commercial undertakings organising an event have responsibilities, both moral and legal, to ensure that the activities which they are organising are reasonably safe, to ensure that they know the risks they are asking people to undertake and to properly inform participants of those risks. Given that society has placed a moral and legal duty on such undertakings, it is a reasonable assumption for this woman to make that the radio station had done so.


The funny part is that you two types are agreeing with each other. She's a put-upon Joan-of-Arc for our times. At the very least you two types need to get together and decide which way you're gonna go... either it IS or ISN'T known. But you CAN'T have it both ways at once. See? Mutually-exclusive posits may not be simultaneously held without incurring cognitive dissonance which must be eventually resolved. So start resolving, already!
it doesn’t matter what is and is not known to the general public, its IS known to health professionals. this radio station had a duty to employ health professionals to advise them of the safety of the commercial activities which they where engaged in.
The radio station may not have known, but legally, and ethically, it SHPOLD have known.



The thread of commonality between you two types of sobsisters is not logic or rationality. Rather, it's the reflexive desire to absolve the "little people" of responsibility for conducting their lives in a fit and healthy way. With you people, it's always the "big guy" who's to blame no matter whatever dumb d*mn thing the "little people" get into.

Sorry, you whine-miners. Reflexive posturing based on "caring," always mugging smugly for the crowd, is NOT critical thinking. It's just sanctimony dressed up as thoughtfulness in a cheap attempt to shame others into not closely evaluating your inconsistent and poorly based religious-y beliefs.

In short, you're saps. Just don't expect the rest of us to fall for it too.:D

You seem very at home with insults, and decrying other peoples rationality, but your "arguments" seem to be based on nothing but your own political ideology, and a mixture of straw men, ad hom attacks and well poisoning.

When I go to a restaurant and am served a meal, it is NOT my duty to ensure that I don't get food poisoning, it is the restaurants. Ii is the same in this case, it was not this woman's duty to determine if the water she was given to drink would prove fatal, it was the radio stations, for very good reasons both moral and economic.

[Thanz]

Not bad. Now here's another one. Why isn't it HER duty to have checked? I mean, it IS her life right? Surely it wouldn't be too much trouble for her to wikipedia "if I drink Lake Huron down at the Q in an attempt to win a fad toy will I, like, totally die or what?"

I did. And the wikipedia result is, "H*ll yes! What... are you stupid?"
Well, for one thing the radio station is creating the contest. Therefore, they are responsible for the situation it creates. They could have run the contest at a level that would not cause death. They chose not to. There should be consequences for that.

Also, if you are telling the truth about your academic background, I find it humourous that someone who spent upwards of $40,000 a year to study Middle Latin has the gall to call anyone else stupid.

[Ian Osborne]

As we've already established, it wouldn't even occur to the average person that drinking too much water can be bad for you, or even fatal. It is unreasonable to expect the contestants to anticipate this. However, the people who organised the competition are professionals, and establishing the competition was safe is not too much to demand.

I know next to nothing about wiring a house. I have to trust my electrician. It's not unreasonable to expect my electrician to do a safe job.

[Pyrrho]

Not bad. Now here's another one. Why isn't it HER duty to have checked? I mean, it IS her life right? Surely it wouldn't be too much trouble for her to wikipedia "if I drink Lake Huron down at the Q in an attempt to win a fad toy will I, like, totally die or what?"

Sure, she could have checked. She could also have said, "I'm not going to subject myself to humiliation." She made a fatal mistake. So did the contest organizers.

I did. And the wikipedia result is, "H*ll yes! What... are you stupid?"
Not stupid, just ignorant. People just do not usually expect that drinking too much water can be fatal. They expect a full bladder and maybe a painfully distended stomach.

[FarmallMTA]

So common wisdom is now the standard for professional negligence? You think that if it makes sense to the average person it should be legal for professionals to do things that way?

You are removing all kinds of liability that your car or house or anything is built right, becuase after all if it makes sense to the layperson why should a professional say different. You neatly get rid of houseing codes and all safety codes.


Ah so just because professionals understand something that means that everyone understands it? Why do doctors go to med school for so long, the word of someone on the street is just as informed as they are.

The fundamental thing you are missing here is this, you might be able to build a treehouse for your kids how ever you want, but if you start building them for others, you are now the one responcible to see that they are built properly not the parents who are paying you. As you want it, it is the parents job to make sure that what you build is safe and structuraly sound.


And you see no responcibility for the actions of others. Manson should be let out of prison after all he never killed anyone himself.

So, if I get your drift, Dimbulb is absolved because she doesn't have a medical degree. But the Q-Morning Zoo Crew, who ALSO doesn't have a medical degree IS responsible? Shucks. I must have missed the part where they went to Dimbulb's house, kidnapped her, dragged her to the radio station, forced her to drink the Ogallala Aquifer with a gun to her head, then laughed callously as she didn't pee her panties. LOL. Better check that again.

[NobbyNobbs]

There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. She was ignorant. We don't have enough information to know whether she was stupid as well.

Until I read this thread, I was ignorant about this as well. I've never heard of water intoxication, never considered there was such a thing. And I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. The radio station should have done their homework before offering the contest. Granted, the woman *could* have done her homework too, but how many (even intelligent) people are likely to assume that it is up to them to make sure the contest is a safe one?

[Ian Osborne]

So, if I get your drift, Dimbulb is absolved because she doesn't have a medical degree. But the Q-Morning Zoo Crew, who ALSO doesn't have a medical degree IS responsible?

Yes, Dimbulb - responsible for checking with someone who has a medical degree. It might not be obvious that drinking to much water can be fatal, but it's common sense to consult with experts before launching a competition which involves disturbing the body's natural routines.

Quite apart from water intoxification, did the radio station consider what effect this exercise might have on a diabetic? On someone with a heart condition? On someone with kidney problems? You can excuse someone in good health entering the competition without knowing something that isn't widely known, but cam you really absolve the organisers for not taking medical advice about issues which go way beyond what might happen to Joe Ordinary?

[pipelineaudio]

I freely admit to being a total ignoramus here...I have come in from the desert and drank LOT of water at a sitting...you already have a hedache and stomach ache, so it would be hard to know...I didnt realize just how little amount of water is deadly

[ponderingturtle]

So, if I get your drift, Dimbulb is absolved because she doesn't have a medical degree. But the Q-Morning Zoo Crew, who ALSO doesn't have a medical degree IS responsible? Shucks. I must have missed the part where they went to Dimbulb's house, kidnapped her, dragged her to the radio station, forced her to drink the Ogallala Aquifer with a gun to her head, then laughed callously as she didn't pee her panties. LOL. Better check that again.

Ah you see here this is where you are showing yet again that you do not understand anything. If you are promoting and organizing an activity then you have a different legal and moral responsibility than if you are just practicing an activity.

If she had decided that she needed to drink all this water for to remove toxins from her system, then she would be entirely responsible. But it is like any product or activity, you make the assumption that the promoters of it have made adequate tests of its safety.

If you go an a roller coaster and it falls down, you are not responsible it is the engineers or maintenance crews who failed in their professional responsibilities. Just like the contest organizers had professional responsibilities to ensure that the contest was safe.

[Morrigan]

I also hadn't heard of water intoxication, but surely anyone with an ounce of common sense would realize that consuming ANYTHING in too large quantities, even more so without excreting it, is bad and potentially fatal for anyone?

While I think the radio station are idiots and probably deserve a lawsuit, I just can't feel any sympathy for that wretched woman. She wasn't just ignorant, she was also stupid. I do feel bad for the kids, though.

[FarmallMTA]

Some of you people crack me up.

It's clueless navel gazers who have created a world in which coffee cups have printed on them, "Caution. Coffee is HOT. Do not spill on yourself or you could suffer burns. Please consult a medical professional before taking possession of this cup of HOT coffee."

What's next? Warnings to Hawaiians that ice cubes are cold? "Don't make a bed out of these ice cubes and go to sleep on them because you could freeze to death"?

:jaw-dropp This ain't pretty, people! Get a grip.

[Ian Osborne]

Those things are common sense. Water intoxication is not common sense. Your posts lack all sense of proportion (or, indeed, propriety).

[pipelineaudio]

What's next? Warnings to Hawaiians that ice cubes are cold? "Don't make a bed out of these ice cubes and go to sleep on them because you could freeze to death"?


Interestingly, a large chunk of hawaiians died, the first time they got the cold or the flu, because they got hot from their fever and figured they needed to go lie in the ocean to cool down

The population has never recovered from that

[ponderingturtle]

Some of you people crack me up.

It's clueless navel gazers who have created a world in which coffee cups have printed on them, "Caution. Coffee is HOT. Do not spill on yourself or you could suffer burns. Please consult a medical professional before taking possession of this cup of HOT coffee."

What's next? Warnings to Hawaiians that ice cubes are cold? "Don't make a bed out of these ice cubes and go to sleep on them because you could freeze to death"?

:jaw-dropp This ain't pretty, people! Get a grip.

Yes, it is just like those MSDS and safety placards. Totaly unnessacary crap that is just trying to protect idiots from them selves. Let them die.

[FarmallMTA]

Those things are common sense. Water intoxication is not common sense. Your posts lack all sense of proportion (or, indeed, propriety).

I guess it is common sense. If it wasn't, cave babies would have drunk too much water at about, say, age 2 out of their sippy cups and the species would be extinct. Yes?

Ditto putting your feet into the fire to warm them up. And skydiving without parachutes. And cutting off your own oxygen supply. There. We've covered, lessee here, earth, air, fire, and, what, WATER? Is there anything else elemental, I said ELEMENTARY my dear Watson, we haven't covered?

:rolleyes:

[Ian Osborne]

But the cave babies would stop because they had no incentive to drink so much water they felt physically uncomfortable. It was by providing an incentive that the radio station took responsibility for what happened.

[ponderingturtle]

But the cave babies would stop because they had no incentive to drink so much water they felt physically uncomfortable. It was by providing an incentive that the radio station took responsibility for what happened.

Yep. People don't drink too much water if they only drink when they are thirsty, it is drinking when you are not thirsty that you get into problems.

[Earthborn]

I freely admit to being a total ignoramus here...I have come in from the desert and drank LOT of water at a sitting...you already have a hedache and stomach ache, so it would be hard to know...I didnt realize just how little amount of water is deadlyIt certainly depends on the circumstances how much water is deadly. In a hot desert, drinking 4 or 5 liters a day is about the minimum necessary to keep yourself from dehydrating, at least for the average European who isn't adapted to such conditions. Drinking that much on a cold winter day in Northern Europe is not likely going to kill you, as long as you go to the toilet frequently. And you'll want to go very frequently, if you manage to chug away that much, which is fairly unlikely.

This contest asked people to do two dangerous things at the same time, apperently took no precautions to ensure it could have been done without permanent harm. Even if you think the people participating were "stupid", I'm fairly certain that it is illegal to let stupid people step into a deadly trap.

[FarmallMTA]

Yes, it is just like those MSDS and safety placards. Totaly unnessacary crap that is just trying to protect idiots from them selves. Let them die.

Water. Invented a long, long time ago. First encountered by humans at age split second after conception the very first time after Pa barely-pre-Human and Ma barely-pre-Human got the initial gleam in their eyes.

Benzene. Isolated in 1825 by Michael Faraday. Not intrinsic to the human experience. Flammable as all h*ll. (CAUTION, CRYBABIES: DO NOT TRY THIS IN YOUR OWN HOMES. ONLY PROFESSIONALS SHOULD TINKER AROUND BLOWING SIHT UP WITH BENZENE! :rolleyes:)

So, no, the two are not equivalent in either common knowledge or characteristics. For example, the last time I tried to set water on fire, it was sort of an all day affair until I got bored and gave up. How's setting water on fire been going for you?

At last, the truth outs. You're calling for MSDS sheets for WATER! :jaw-dropp

[ponderingturtle]

Water. Invented a long, long time ago. First encountered by humans at age split second after conception the very first time after Pa barely-pre-Human and Ma barely-pre-Human got the initial gleam in their eyes.

Benzene. Isolated in 1825 by Michael Faraday. Not intrinsic to the human experience. Flammable as all h*ll. (CAUTION, CRYBABIES: DO NOT TRY THIS IN YOUR OWN HOMES. ONLY PROFESSIONALS SHOULD TINKER AROUND BLOWING SIHT UP WITH BENZENE! :rolleyes:)

So, no, the two are not equivalent in either common knowledge or characteristics. For example, the last time I tried to set water on fire, it was sort of an all day affair until I got bored and gave up. How's setting water on fire been going for you?

At last, the truth outs. You're calling for MSDS sheets for WATER! :jaw-dropp

THere is one for salt (http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/NaCl.htm)

So when something is not obvious there need to be warnings of the risks? And how obvious is it that drinking to much water will alter your mental status and cause you to die as opposed to possibly rupturing your bladder?

[Pyrrho]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/too-high-a-price-for-a-wii/

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/108103.html

or

http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/108103.html


Jennifer Lea Strange died after drinking well over a half gallon of water Friday during the "Morning Rave" program on The End (KDND, 107.9 FM). About 18 contestants vied for a Nintendo Wii gaming console by drinking as much water as they could without going to the bathroom; Strange took second place.

James Ybarra, a Woodland man who gave up after drinking eight 8-fluid-ounce bottles of water, or half a gallon, said that Strange kept going.

...

"It is sad that a mother had to lose her life to get something for her kids," he said. "None of us knew this could be a risk to our health."

..

Gina Sherrod, who competed with Strange in the contest, said her family listened to the radio show, and told her that a nurse was on air warning that drinking too much water is dangerous. Sherrod said a DJ rebuffed the nurse, saying the contestants signed waivers that addressed only publicity issues and made no mention of health or safety concerns.


Ahem. If that last part is true, then the station was duly informed of the dangers and failed to act appropriately.

[FarmallMTA]

And how obvious is it that drinking to much water will alter your mental status and cause you to die as opposed to possibly rupturing your bladder?

That's exactly my point. It's TOTALLY obvious if you're not stupid.

[negativ]

It's very sad, and frankly, most people probably don't know you can die from drinking too much water.

I had no idea it was remotely possible until some fratboy died during a hazing incident somewhere around here a couple of years ago.

[FarmallMTA]

I had no idea it was remotely possible until some fratboy died during a hazing incident somewhere around here a couple of years ago.

So what do you people do? Drink 5 gallons of water when you're thirsty? If not, why not?

[brodski]

So what do you people do? Drink 5 gallons of water when you're thirsty? If not, why not?

there is a differnce between something being unpleasant, and something being dangerous.
I find listening to Chris DeBurgh unpleasant, but if I where to enter a Chris DeBurgh listening endurance competition, not only would I not expect to be physically harmed by the music I would expect the organizers to make sure that I was not going to be physically harmed.

[ponderingturtle]

That's exactly my point. It's TOTALLY obvious if you're not stupid.

So electrolyte ballance is a fundamental and obvious fact? Why do so many people give marathon runners bad advice then?

[Thanz]

I find listening to Chris DeBurgh unpleasant, but if I where to enter a Chris DeBurgh listening endurance competition, not only would I not expect to be physically harmed by the music I would expect the organizers to make sure that I was not going to be physically harmed.
Wow, you really must be stupid. Not only are you ignoring the glaringly obvious risks to mental health involved in such a challenge, but most assuredly one of your major internal organs would stage some sort of attack in order to remove the whole of your being from harm's way.

As for the organizers, the only possible reason to stage a Chris DeBurgh listening endurance competition is to inflict tortuous, ceaseless, debilitating harm on the participants.

[FarmallMTA]

Wow, you really must be stupid. Not only are you ignoring the glaringly obvious risks to mental health involved in such a challenge, but most assuredly one of your major internal organs would stage some sort of attack in order to remove the whole of your being from harm's way.

As for the organizers, the only possible reason to stage a Chris DeBurgh listening endurance competition is to inflict tortuous, ceaseless, debilitating harm on the participants.

Who's Chris Deburgh? Cher crossdressed?

[Thanz]

Who's Chris Deburgh? Cher crossdressed?
No, Cher is Cher crossdressed.

If you are truly unacquainted with the K-Lite FM stylings of Mr. DeBurgh, count yourself lucky and never speak of him again.

[brodski]

Who's Chris Deburgh? Cher crossdressed?

he is the monobrowed purveyor of ultimate filth.

His most famous song is the arse-clenchingly bad "Lady in Red".

[roger]

edited: opps, somehow posted to wrong thread. nevermind.

[pgwenthold]

he is the monobrowed purveyor of ultimate filth.

His most famous song is the arse-clenchingly bad "Lady in Red".

Ah, The Lady in Red. Makes me think of my freshman year of college when we went to the bar for Thursday night "nickel draws" for happy hour. The song was on, and in walked a really, really gorgeous chick in a red dress.

You will excuse me for not minding that song at all.

OTOH, I also remember "Desert Moon," but don't have a pleasant memory to associate with it.

[Katana]

"Don't Pay the Ferryman" was a decent song. I'll give him that one.

[HarryKeogh]

Jennifer Lea Strange died after drinking well over a half gallon of water Friday during the "Morning Rave" program on The End (KDND, 107.9 FM).


Is it just me or does this not seem like it's an insane amount of water.

[Kaylee]

The fact that you can die through drinking too much water is not common knowledge, and is certainly not common sense.

I agree. I wouldn't have expected the contest organizers to consult a doctor about the possible harm in drinking water anymore than I would have expected them to consult one about the possible harm in breathing.


Gina Sherrod, who competed with Strange in the contest, said her family listened to the radio show, and told her that a nurse was on air warning that drinking too much water is dangerous. Sherrod said a DJ rebuffed the nurse, saying the contestants signed waivers that addressed only publicity issues and made no mention of health or safety concerns.

Ahem. If that last part is true, then the station was duly informed of the dangers and failed to act appropriately.

Absolutely, it would have taken the radio station all of 30 seconds to confirm it on the Internet and make sure the nurse wasn't trolling. This condition is also called overhydration, btw.

I'm surprised that the radio station only received one phone call warning about the dangers. There were no other nurses, doctors, physical therapists, or sports "gurus" listening in? :confused:

I guess they really did need to boost their ratings. :rolleyes: Its just really unfortunate that they picked a water drinking contest. :(

[brodski]

"Don't Pay the Ferryman" was a decent song. I'll give him that one.

No it wasn't, and no you shouldn't. :p

I am now obliged by ancient charter to post this youtube clip.
Most Uk comedy fans know what this is going to be..

tu6uMDfBN88

[FarmallMTA]

he is the monobrowed purveyor of ultimate filth.

His most famous song is the arse-clenchingly bad "Lady in Red".

Oh, great. I just had to ask. Now guess which song is rocketing around inside my skull and won't stop playing. I even tried thinking about the "A Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" song and it won't stop.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! That's mean, man. Just plain mean. :mad:

[brodski]

I agree. I wouldn't expect the contest organizers to consult a doctor about the possible harm in drinking water anymore than I would expect them to consult one about the possible harm in breathing.

there is a difference between inquiring into the dangers of breathing, and the dangers of forcing people to hyperventilate.
They may not have known the risks, but they should have made it their business to find out.

[Hutch]

I don't know if the woman was smart or dumb, I don't know if the radio station was advised of the risks or not, I don't even know what this thread is doing here (sorry Scrut)

What I do know for certain is that three kids, whose mother loved them enough to try and win a contest to get them something they would like, will ever see their mother alive again.

I find that uniquely depressing...along with this thread (albeit I did not read every last post--I had no wish to)

I'm out.

[joobie]

Darwin at work.

today is a holiday. darwin took off. not that he'd agree with your use of his name. remember, survival of the fittest does not equal survival of the smartest, or else there'd be no insects on earth. or unicellular organisms, for that matter.

but i guess when you want to laugh at someone else's death it's easier to be intellectually lazy.

[Katana]

No it wasn't, and no you shouldn't. :p

I am now obliged by ancient charter to post this youtube clip.
Most Uk comedy fans know what this is going to be..

tu6uMDfBN88

And a hearty :p right back atcha, brodski.

[brodski]

Oh, great. I just had to ask. Now guess which song is rocketing around inside my skull and won't stop playing. I even tried thinking about the "A Lovely Bunch of Coconuts" song and it won't stop.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! That's mean, man. Just plain mean. :mad:

sorry.
here listen to this, it should wipe your musical palate clean...

bBT9J8xg3c4&NR

[joobie]

I just can't feel any sympathy for that wretched woman.

do you feel sympathy for people that die as a result of car accidents?

after all, that's a common occurrence and you should expect it to happen. and you are an obvious idiot who deserves a 'darwin award' if you die that way. after all, we all know it's dangerous.

:)

[FarmallMTA]

sorry.
here listen to this, it should wipe your musical palate clean...

bBT9J8xg3c4&NR

LOL. Now that's funny! And yes, it fried my music circuits. Okay. I'm good now.

[dann]

but i guess when you want to laugh at someone else's death it's easier to be intellectually lazy.You are right, joobie. Darwin was not a smart alec. These awards don't live up to their name.

[The Black Fox]

At least they won't be learning any life lessons from a clueless idiot of a mother. And on the bright side (there's always a bright side) they can sell her car to kick off the "help the orphans" scholarship fund. Should be an easy sell since she apparently didn't ruin the upholstery. ROFLMAO.

I'm sure that will be a great consolation to them.

Hmmm. You might have something there. I haven't won it yet.

Don't worry, there's plenty of time.

[Camillus]

Sure it is. Here's one way. You got too much water inside you. :D

About a third of people who drown have no detectable water in their lungs. Their larynx closes and they "dry drown".

I would have thought a ubermensch like yourself would have known that. ;)

[Architect]

Some of you people crack me up.

It's clueless navel gazers who have created a world in which coffee cups have printed on them, "Caution. Coffee is HOT. Do not spill on yourself or you could suffer burns. Please consult a medical professional before taking possession of this cup of HOT coffee."

What's next? Warnings to Hawaiians that ice cubes are cold? "Don't make a bed out of these ice cubes and go to sleep on them because you could freeze to death"?

:jaw-dropp This ain't pretty, people! Get a grip.



[sigh]

Oh dear, what an ill informed rant.

The law over the entire western world is quite clear. An organiser (or a supplier of goods) has a reasonable duty of care to ensure that an activity (or product) is safe for the intended purpose.

Now in America (in particular) your courts seem to have a problem with defining reasonable, however that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Consider: When buying a car, you do not expect to have to carry out a full inspection prior to driving it. The garage have a duty of care to ensure that it's roadworthy.

Likewise when you buy food the shop has an obligation to ensure they're not poisoning you. It's no good them saying "well, he should have recognised the risk of e-coli contamination, it's just natural selection".

The radio station invited participants to engage in an activity which even a few of us on this board could have told them was dangerous. If they took no steps to ensure safety of participants, then they are culpable. If they ignored medical advice, they're culpable.

:covereyes

[dann]

I would have thought a ubermensch like yourself would have known that. ;)Right! It never ceases to amaze me how dense elitists always are.

[ponderingturtle]

About a third of people who drown have no detectable water in their lungs. Their larynx closes and they "dry drown".

I would have thought a ubermensch like yourself would have known that. ;)

And then there are all the problems with near drowning, with osmotic pressure issues and such

[ponderingturtle]

Right! It never ceases to amaze me how dense elitists always are.

Elitists harvard trained busdrivers.

[FarmallMTA]

About a third of people who drown have no detectable water in their lungs. Their larynx closes and they "dry drown".

I would have thought a ubermensch like yourself would have known that. ;)

Alright! Now we're getting someplace here! I LOVE it when the Bawl Brigade demonstrates their own fallacies!!! Keep it up. Only problem is.... you're making it too easy for me.

You're FINALLY acknowledging that WATER has numerous KNOWN deleterious effects on the body. And the totally cool thing about this knowledge is that the BODY instinctively knows it and has mechanisms to ward off the danger... hence the larynx closing to prevent water inhalation. AND the instinct TO QUIT DRINKING WATER WHEN SATED.

And, just as we're ALL here to testify, too much water can KILL you. All the smart people know it. All the average people know it. Babies know it or they'd drink themselves to death. Animals even know it (even the ones who don't attend college. LOLOLOLOLOLOL). 99.999999999999999999999999% of living organisms know it or they'd be dead. Even the people who fall out of the boat and can't swim know it or they wouldn't flail around trying to survive, water inhaled, larynx closed or what have you. So close to 100% of living breathing beings KNOW this to be true.

What the idiot woman did was let her OWN greed override her natural self-preservation instinct by VOLUNTARILY over consuming in the course of VOLUNTARILY participating in a contest involving the most basic and fundamental material of life. She was VOLUNTARILY able to stop at any point. By participating she encountered risk, but because of her VOLUNTARY participation, she assumed superseding responsibility to ameliorate that risk.

There's a restaurant in Texas that advertises a free steak dinner if eaten in one hour. The catch is that it's a HUGE dinner. More than nearly anybody on the planet can eat. Some idiot who suffered a heart attack while trying sued them and trotted out all these same goofy sobsister arguments. "Duty to provide a safe environment." "The free dinner enticement directly overrode the natural instinct to not overeat" "My client couldn't possibly be aware of the effects of overeating." "Overeating causes the body to dramatically alter bodily processes including heart rate so this lure to overeat is a direct and known danger to participants that the restaurant should have known about." Blah, blah, blah.

They lost the case. The restaurant won. On the principle that voluntary, non-coerced participation in a contest involving ordinary life materials does not make the contest sponsor liable for body reactions of contestants, despite the presence of an incentive to overdo. The contestant has primary duty to moderate personal intake to prevent personal harm. Not the contest sponsor. Same outcome when people sue bars for intoxicating them with alcohol. Cigarette companies for providing the cigarettes that give them cancer. Manufacturers for providing cars that can go in excess of the speed limit. It's your responsibility to keep yourself alive, not somebody else's.

That's it. All in. All done. She's a dumbass who got carried away. Play Taps, shovel the dirt, lets HAVE A DRINK. Adios, babe.

[UserGoogol]

And, just as we're ALL here to testify, too much water can KILL you. All the smart people know it. All the average people know it. Babies know it or they'd drink themselves to death. Animals even know it (even the ones who don't attend college. LOLOLOLOLOLOL). 99.999999999999999999999999% of living organisms know it or they'd be dead. Even the people who fall out of the boat and can't swim know it or they wouldn't flail around trying to survive, water inhaled, larynx closed or what have you. So close to 100% of living breathing beings KNOW this to be true.

No they don't. They have behavioral habits such that they generally do not get into situations where they consume enough water to kill themselves. This is for various reasons: the natural scarcity of water, the sense of fullness when an organism has consumed "enough" water and would better spend its time doing other things, and so on.

I suspect that it wouldn't be that hard to set up a laboratory situation where some sort of animal drinks itself to death. (Without "cheating" by drugging the animal or anything.)

I'm not a big fan of instinct, at any rate. It's patently irrational to believe something just because your brainmeats are predisposed to make you think that way. Perhaps there is value to instinct, because evolution tended to select only instincts that were useful (although the environment in which human beings did most of their evolving is radically different from the environment that we currently live in) but it's still information that isn't confirmed by any sort of empirical or logical proccess. It's possible that making a bed out of ice could actually be quite comfortable. So in that sense, I somewhat support the idea that "common sense" things should be posted on objects. Coffee is indeed hot! (Ideally, of course, the information could be presented better, because "Coffee is hot" is somewhat less useful than "This coffee is served at 190 degrees farenheit, a temperature which has been shown to cause third degree burns if exposed directly to skin.")

What the idiot woman did was let her OWN greed override her natural self-preservation instinct by VOLUNTARILY over consuming in the course of VOLUNTARILY participating in a contest involving the most basic and fundamental material of life. She was VOLUNTARILY able to stop at any point. By participating she encountered risk, but because of her VOLUNTARY participation, she assumed superseding responsibility to ameliorate that risk.

Responsibility doesn't work that way. Responsibility isn't some magical fairy dust that gets tossed around whenever people perform "voluntary acts," (and I have my doubts on how meaningful that catagory is, since ultimately all our actions are ordained by the laws of physics) but rather it's a function of causality and to what degree the person could have knowingly prevented the act. Just because one person is responsible does not in any way impact another person's responsiblity. The woman could have known better, and in retrospect, made a mistake which cost her her life. But the radio station also could have known better. When you enter a contest, you are only risking yourself. When you start a contest, you are risking all the people who enter the contest. Perhaps the fact that they choose to enter the contest reduces things, but there are a lot of other variables.

[pipelineaudio]

There's a restaurant in Texas that advertises a free steak dinner if eaten in one hour. The catch is that it's a HUGE dinner. More than nearly anybody on the planet can eat.

More than one actually, a few restaraunts have this gimmick

http://www.bigtexan.com/

My entire group ate these for free on the way back from the Oklahoma City Bicycle Stunts contest. This steak didnt seem so huge after riding our bikes like madmen for three days. I was 125 pounds at the time and I think the biggest of us was 145.

On a further but hopefully more related derail, for our second video we had a gallon of milk drinking contest. According to what we read, the stomach is too small to hold in that much milk at one sitting. We got a LOT of white barfing on film. Great stuff, but there were a few that were able to down the whole thing. COuld we have killed them? They looked all dopey eyed and kinda drunkish

Now I look back somewhat in horror, though it was hillarious at the time

[FarmallMTA]

More than one actually, a few restaraunts have this gimmick

http://www.bigtexan.com/

My entire group ate these for free on the way back from the Oklahoma City Bicycle Stunts contest. This steak didnt seem so huge after riding our bikes like madmen for three days. I was 125 pounds at the time and I think the biggest of us was 145.

On a further but hopefully more related derail, for our second video we had a gallon of milk drinking contest. According to what we read, the stomach is too small to hold in that much milk at one sitting. We got a LOT of white barfing on film. Great stuff, but there were a few that were able to down the whole thing. COuld we have killed them? They looked all dopey eyed and kinda drunkish

Now I look back somewhat in horror, though it was hillarious at the time

Hey, I know the overeating problem. My wife's grandmother made this gigantic T-day meal including cornbread dressing. Everything was so delicious I had thirds, and 5ths of the cornbread dressing. THEN she pulled out my favorite, banana cream pie. I ate half of that. With lots of milk.

I went home, went to bed and didn't get up for 2 days. No hurling, but Lord I've never hurt so bad in my life. I still remember that meal. Good memories, but I'll never repeat that again ever.

[Checkmite]

And don't, like, totally bore me with the distinction between inhaling water thereby preventing blood oxygenation vs. imbibition resulting in solute dilution of cellular contents and membrane rupture. Yawn.

So you already know you're wrong but don't care? Well, at least you're forthright about it.

A contest to see how much water one can drink is not as inherently dangerous as, say, a contest to see who can jump off the highest bridge. Water is good for you. It makes up better than nine tenths of your body mass. You need lots of it every day. In fact, most could really use more than what they actually drink. People die left and right from dehydration. So the fact that you can drink too much of it is, though true, highly counterintuitive - and that's being modest.

This death was senseless and preventable, but that's the worst that can fairly be said about it.

[This Guy]

More than one actually, a few restaraunts have this gimmick

http://www.bigtexan.com/

My entire group ate these for free on the way back from the Oklahoma City Bicycle Stunts contest. This steak didnt seem so huge after riding our bikes like madmen for three days. I was 125 pounds at the time and I think the biggest of us was 145.

On a further but hopefully more related derail, for our second video we had a gallon of milk drinking contest. According to what we read, the stomach is too small to hold in that much milk at one sitting. We got a LOT of white barfing on film. Great stuff, but there were a few that were able to down the whole thing. COuld we have killed them? They looked all dopey eyed and kinda drunkish

Now I look back somewhat in horror, though it was hillarious at the time

Brings to mind some of my drinking sprees.

I sometimes think it's amazing that there are any folks older than about 25 alive. I'm surprised we haven't all killed ourselves off by 30, by doing those stupid things we did in our youth. ;)

And as a further derail (oops! ;)) Why is it when we're young and have so much more life ahead of us, do we risk it so easily, and as we get older, and have less life to look forward to, we get all scared and careful? ;)

[NobbyNobbs]

That's exactly my point. It's TOTALLY obvious if you're not stupid.

Wow, and here I thought I was fairly smart. You say this is TOTALLY obvious with the same conviction that Christophera says it should be obvious that the WTC had a concrete core.

Alright! Now we're getting someplace here! I LOVE it when the Bawl Brigade demonstrates their own fallacies!!! Keep it up. Only problem is.... you're making it too easy for me.

You're FINALLY acknowledging that WATER has numerous KNOWN deleterious effects on the body. And the totally cool thing about this knowledge is that the BODY instinctively knows it and has mechanisms to ward off the danger... hence the larynx closing to prevent water inhalation.



Um..there is quite a difference between the body instinctively not wanting to inhale water and deciding on purpose whether or not to drink water.

[FarmallMTA]

Um..there is quite a difference between the body instinctively not wanting to inhale water and deciding on purpose whether or not to drink water.

No distinction whatsoever. Both require overriding natural basic instincts, inherent bodily knowledge, when done voluntarily. Black still isn't white. Boohoo about something else.

[FarmallMTA]

Brings to mind some of my drinking sprees.

I sometimes think it's amazing that there are any folks older than about 25 alive. I'm surprised we haven't all killed ourselves off by 30, by doing those stupid things we did in our youth. ;)

And as a further derail (oops! ;)) Why is it when we're young and have so much more life ahead of us, do we risk it so easily, and as we get older, and have less life to look forward to, we get all scared and careful? ;)

Wisdom is wasted on the old. Youth is wasted on the young. Sure isn't fair.

[Kaylee]

there is a difference between inquiring into the dangers of breathing, and the dangers of forcing people to hyperventilate.
They may not have known the risks, but they should have made it their business to find out.

OK, so you're very tuned in to health risks, that's great. Just wondering, did you read the rest of my post?

Lets forget about lawsuits for a moment and just think about doing the right thing as human beings.

It appears that many of us in this forum didn't know that it's possible to die from water intoxication or overhydration. And as several have said, it really is counterintuitive that that is the case. (ETA: So counterintuitive that this is why I said in my earlier post that I would not have expected station management to consult with a lawyer or doctor about this before hand.) But this is apparently a well-known fact among people in the health field, sports field and probably even among a few news junkies. Yet, it seems, that only one nurse called in to say "Hey! What you guys are doing is life threatening!"

That one phone call should have been enough. From what I've been able to read over the Internet, if the contest had been stopped at that point, and all the contestants instructed to eat salty chips or pretzels, probably no one would have died. Unfortunately the DJ decided to ignore the nurse's warnings. Lets give him the benefit of doubt and say that he thought she was just a troll.

Well, why did only one person call in to say that this was a life- threatening stunt? Where were Sacramento's other nurses, doctors, physical therapist, and coaches? Sacramento is not a hick town, why didn't more people call in to say this was dangerous? If this contest was promoted in advance like many radio contests are, than that would make the situation even worse.

I'm sure things would have turned have quite differently if 10 or even only 5 people have called the station to say how dangerous this contest was. If these hypothetical callers had all been blown off by the station's manager -- well just imagine what would have happened if only one of them had called the city or county's health department. JenniferStrange (the woman who inspired this thread) would probably still be alive.

The whole thing is really sad, and I've been trying to figure out why people just didn't simply call in and say this contest was dangerous. The best I can come up with is that most people are probably socialized to unquestioningly trust and cooperate with authority, and to not be "troublemakers." And that's pretty sad too.

[Ian Osborne]

Does anyone know what audience the station appeals to? It could be that it's a downmarket audio equivalent of The Sun (UK tabloid for idiots), and healthcare professionals were unlikely to tune in.

[dann]

Elitists harvard trained busdrivers.You have to work so much harder at being an elitist when you aren't actually a member of the elite!

[Architect]

So just to summarise, the entire liability system of the western world, from Donoghue vs Stevenson onwards, is wrong but FarmallMTA is right.

Erm, no, sorry Farmall. I'm sticking with 100+ years of case law and common sense.

[monoman]

Jennifer Lea Strange died after drinking well over a half gallon of water Friday during the "Morning Rave" program on The End (KDND, 107.9 FM).Is it just me or does this not seem like it's an insane amount of water.

It's not just you. Half a U.S. gallon is only 1.89 litres which is under 4 small bottles of water (Unless my conversion is wrong).
I've drunk well over that on several occasions - granted i used the toilet, but, although aware of water intoxication, i had no idea i may die if i was stuck in a traffic jam for 4 hours.

Maybe the women had a low sodium count.

[Rasmus]

So, if I get your drift, Dimbulb is absolved because she doesn't have a medical degree. But the Q-Morning Zoo Crew, who ALSO doesn't have a medical degree IS responsible? Shucks. I must have missed the part where they went to Dimbulb's house, kidnapped her, dragged her to the radio station, forced her to drink the Ogallala Aquifer with a gun to her head, then laughed callously as she didn't pee her panties. LOL. Better check that again.

It has been suggested that the patrons of a restaurant are not responsible for ensuring that the food they are served and will eat is not poisonous.

May I also suggest that if I get in my car and drive along a road it is not my responsibility to check if any bridges will hold the weight of my car?

Since Germany did host the last soccer world cup - do you think it was the responsibility of the teams or even individual players to ensure the arenas wouldn't collapse or cave in during a game - or do you think that the organizers, builders and architects would have been the ones to ensure the buildings stood as they were supposed to?

[Ian Osborne]

Maybe the women had a low sodium count.

Yes, there are a number of medical conditions I'd want to run by a doctor before organising a competition like that. Diabeties, for example. Or kidney problems. Or stomach ulcers. Or gallstones. I've no idea whether any of these conditions is relevant to the task set for the competition, but as I don't know for a fact they're not relevant, I'd want to go through them with a doctor. At which point, of course, the water toxification stuff would've been brought to my attention.

Even if we can't expect the organisers to know about water toxification themselves, it seems alarming they didn't find out via this route.

[NobbyNobbs]

No distinction whatsoever. Both require overriding natural basic instincts, inherent bodily knowledge, when done voluntarily. Black still isn't white. Boohoo about something else.


No distinction between drinking water and breathing it?

Let's try an experiment, Farmal. Go get a glass of water. Drink the first half of it. Any trouble? Now try breathing the second half of it and see what happens.

Come back and let me know if you detect a distinction.

[dann]

May I also suggest that if I get in my car and drive along a road it is not my responsibility to check if any bridges will hold the weight of my car? Why bother, Rasmus? You already know the answer:
No distinction whatsoever. Both require overriding natural basic instincts, inherent bodily knowledge, when done voluntarily. Black still isn't white. Boohoo about something else.

[roger]

It's not just you. Half a U.S. gallon is only 1.89 litres which is under 4 small bottles of water (Unless my conversion is wrong).
I've drunk well over that on several occasions - granted i used the toilet, but, although aware of water intoxication, i had no idea i may die if i was stuck in a traffic jam for 4 hours.

Maybe the women had a low sodium count.It wasn't "half a gallon". It was "well over half a gallon". Note that one participant stopped after half a gallon, but she continued on, and at some point they switched to bigger bottles of water. I suspect the person quoted was being very careful in his speech; he knew he stopped at 1/2G, he didn't know exactly how much she drank, except it was a lot more than he had drank.

[brodski]

Even if we can't expect the organisers to know about water toxification themselves, it seems alarming they didn't find out via this route.

The cheerleaders for this woman's death actually seem to want situation where the radio station would be actively discouraged from seeking medical advice. If "we didn't know it was dangerous" was an acceptable defence, then any smart event organiser (or product maufactuere0 would go out of their way to make sure that they remained completely ignorant of the dangers involved in their business.
Now, I don't know about US occupational health and safety legislation (and I suspect it varies from state to state), but in the UK undertakings are required to carry out a full risk assessment before carrying out their business activities. Any half competent risk assessment would have picked up on the dangers.

[ponderingturtle]

So you already know you're wrong but don't care? Well, at least you're forthright about it.

A contest to see how much water one can drink is not as inherently dangerous as, say, a contest to see who can jump off the highest bridge. Water is good for you. It makes up better than nine tenths of your body mass. You need lots of it every day. In fact, most could really use more than what they actually drink. People die left and right from dehydration. So the fact that you can drink too much of it is, though true, highly counterintuitive - and that's being modest.

This death was senseless and preventable, but that's the worst that can fairly be said about it.


And this attitude is part of the problem. Most people are not that dehydrated and telling people to drink water when they are not thirsty is one of the more dangerous modern exercise myths. It has lead to people doing what this person did because they thought it was good for them.

Hearing this, it makes most people think that it is even less likely to be dangerous.

[ponderingturtle]

No distinction whatsoever. Both require overriding natural basic instincts, inherent bodily knowledge, when done voluntarily. Black still isn't white. Boohoo about something else.

Got it, fighting instint is bad, so you should to what ever you feel might feel good at the time?

You are repeadedly ignoreing that there is a clear mechanism to most people for why drowning can kill you, the mechanism here is not obvious to people with out a good chemistry background.

[FarmallMTA]

Got it, fighting instint is bad, so you should to what ever you feel might feel good at the time?

You are repeadedly ignoreing that there is a clear mechanism to most people for why drowning can kill you, the mechanism here is not obvious to people with out a good chemistry background.

Not ignoring it at all. In fact in at least 20 posts I've NOT been ignoring it. Quite to the contrary, I keep harping on it. Get a clue, already wouldya? It's getting boring repeating the same old thing over and over!

Let's try it again. One last time. Grok it, already!

The body tells you to STOP DRINKING WATER! It's called the satiation feedback. The ONLY way you can drink too much water is to affirmatively OVERRIDE the feedback mechanism, unless coercion is involved (even you seem to agree her participation was voluntary).

She, without coercion, affirmatively overrode her own feedback mechanism telling her to "STOP DRINKING WATER, DIMBULB BABE!" She ignored it and CHOOSE to keep drinking. She did it by herself to herself of her own volition.

She was a living dumbass. Now she's a dead dumbass. I nominate her for the Darwin Extra Effort Award!

[brodski]

Not ignoring it at all. In fact in at least 20 posts I've NOT been ignoring it. Quite to the contrary, I keep harping on it. Get a clue, already wouldya? It's getting boring repeating the same old thing over and over!

Let's try it again. One last time. Grok it, already!

The body tells you to STOP DRINKING WATER! It's called the satiation feedback. The ONLY way you can drink too much water is to affirmatively OVERRIDE the feedback mechanism, unless coercion is involved (even you seem to agree her participation was voluntary).

She, without coercion, affirmatively overrode her own feedback mechanism telling her to "STOP DRINKING WATER, DIMBULB BABE!" She ignored it and CHOOSE to keep drinking. She did it by herself to herself of her own volition.

She was a living dumbass. Now she's a dead dumbass. I nominate her for the Darwin Extra Effort Award!
Every time I get on a plane, my whole body screams at me that flying isn't natural, that there is no way so much metal should be able to stay in the air- it's not safe. The only way for me o board a plane is to override my bodies natural defence mechanism.
Now, if I where to board a plane which disintegrated in mid flight, because the airline decided not to check its airworthiness because they "didn't know it wasn't safe", would I also be eligible for your extra super special Darwin grave pissing award?

Or should I be able to presume that taking a flight is a relatively safe thing to do?

[Kaylee]

Does anyone know what audience the station appeals to? It could be that it's a downmarket audio equivalent of The Sun (UK tabloid for idiots), and healthcare professionals were unlikely to tune in.

Good question. Here's the radio station's morning show's web site:
http://www.endonline.com/jocks_content/morningrave/index.php (http://www.endonline.com/jocks_content/morningrave/index.php)

I'm very hard of hearing and don't usually wear my hearing aids at home. And when I do listen to music, I usually listen to my CDs, not the radio (I really hate the commercials) so I can't judge the demographics based on the station's line up -- someone else will have to jump in here. However, their ads seem targetted to the middle class: a Chevy car dealership, an online university and a search engine's web site (Ask Jeeves). The talk shows topics they had coming up included the California governor and various health related areas: laser vision correction, plastic surgery and a psychologist. So I would say that their audience demographics seems educated enough that I'm still amazed that only one nurse called in to tell the DJs that their water drinking contest was dangerous. (BTW, eating contests are not unusual in the US. This is another reason why I'm not surprised that no lawyers or physicians were consulted about the water drinking contest. Intuitively over-drinking does not seem that much different than over-eating.)

BTW, that morning show is temporarily off the air - - here's the stations' announcement: (http://endonline.com/index_message.php)

All of you are probably aware of the tragic death of a contestant, Jennifer Strange, following her participation in a contest on the Morning Rave last Friday.

First and foremost, our thoughts and sympathies go out to Jennifer's family and loved ones.

I also want to assure you that the circumstances regarding this matter are being examined as thoroughly as possible. We are doing everything we can to deal with this difficult situation in a manner that is both respectful and responsible. In the interim, the Morning Rave is off the air indefinitely.

Thank you.

John Geary
Vice-President & General Manager
107.9 THE END

[Rasmus]

The body tells you to STOP DRINKING WATER! It's called the satiation feedback. The ONLY way you can drink too much water is to affirmatively OVERRIDE the feedback mechanism, unless coercion is involved (even you seem to agree her participation was voluntary).

She, without coercion, affirmatively overrode her own feedback mechanism telling her to "STOP DRINKING WATER, DIMBULB BABE!" She ignored it and CHOOSE to keep drinking. She did it by herself to herself of her own volition.

She was a living dumbass. Now she's a dead dumbass. I nominate her for the Darwin Extra Effort Award!

I know this will be lost on you, but there is a vast difference in overriding a normal, every-day instinct and something lethal.

I get up in the morning, even trhough instinct tells me that sleep is more important than keeping a job that expects me to show up at work before 2pm. Yet, quite regularily, there I am in the office, fighting back my urge to sleep just another 5 minutes. I severly doubt I am risking my life.

Jogging. I have - on more than one occasion - done more than what my instincts were telling me to do. More often than not, my instincts tell me to simply not go jogging at all, period. Yet, there I am, running (or trampling as the case may be) through a forrest. And very often I decide to keep running even though I may be tired and exhausted. (My house isn't very accomodating and just stays put wherever it's been built. Never comes to pick even if it's just a quarter mile - so I keep running the lasst bit.)

Do I realize that what I do is unhealthy? Not even that. I know my muscles will be aching the next day, but that should be it. I have on occasion taken the bus or asked people to pick me up for the last couple of miles when the house was just too far away. Did I think I would kill myself if I kept on running? No! I was just too exhausted to keep running, a walk would have made me terribly late and I might have gotten a cold or something.

Need I point out that I have overeaten and poured myself a drink too much more than once, too? And don't get me started on not getting enough sleep....

[FarmallMTA]

I know this will be lost on you, but there is a vast difference in overriding a normal, every-day instinct and something lethal.

I get up in the morning, even trhough instinct tells me that sleep is more important than keeping a job that expects me to show up at work before 2pm. Yet, quite regularily, there I am in the office, fighting back my urge to sleep just another 5 minutes. I severly doubt I am risking my life.

Jogging. I have - on more than one occasion - done more than what my instincts were telling me to do. More often than not, my instincts tell me to simply not go jogging at all, period. Yet, there I am, running (or trampling as the case may be) through a forrest. And very often I decide to keep running even though I may be tired and exhausted. (My house isn't very accomodating and just stays put wherever it's been built. Never comes to pick even if it's just a quarter mile - so I keep running the lasst bit.)

Do I realize that what I do is unhealthy? Not even that. I know my muscles will be aching the next day, but that should be it. I have on occasion taken the bus or asked people to pick me up for the last couple of miles when the house was just too far away. Did I think I would kill myself if I kept on running? No! I was just too exhausted to keep running, a walk would have made me terribly late and I might have gotten a cold or something.

Need I point out that I have overeaten and poured myself a drink too much more than once, too? And don't get me started on not getting enough sleep....

Not lost on me at all. And the things you point out are perfectly normal everyday overrides with rather little chance of fatality resulting.

Here'd be a non-normal override. You're 2 miles from your home which is at the bottom of a canyon. Your run uphill takes you to the top of the ledge which, if you'd just jump off, would peel 1.85 miles off your trip back.

If you choose to jump, you'd do a stupid thing. You'd override a basic life instinct. Please don't try it. We need you here. :)

The woman CHOSE to override a basic life instinct and paid the price. No need to feel sorry for her one whit.

[slingblade]

You're right. Completely and totally right. Let's move on.










They just want stroking is all. Egos are so cute when they're huge.

[FarmallMTA]

You're right. Completely and totally right. Let's move on.

Sure. Okay.

[Darat]

I've had to move posts to AAH twice, if I have to do it again I'll take further action which may include suspensions.

Attack the argument not the arguer.

[Morrigan]

do you feel sympathy for people that die as a result of car accidents?

after all, that's a common occurrence and you should expect it to happen. and you are an obvious idiot who deserves a 'darwin award' if you die that way. after all, we all know it's dangerous.

:)
This is a faulty analogy. People usually need to use a car to get somewhere in every day life. If the person drove recklessly, I would feel little sympathy if she died. If she was excercising typical caution and just got unlucky, it'd be a different story.

This woman put her health at risk. No, I don't blame her for not knowing it'd get her killed, but surely she could have figured out she was putting her health at risk. As I said, it's common sense that ingesting too much of something, anything, especially without excreting it, can't be good for your body.

[Modified]

I once had a sodium imbalance after working out and running in 100 degree heat, and drinking nothing but water. My calves and all the muscles in my forearms locked up, my heart was at times just sort of randomly fluttering, and I had the general sense that I was about to die. I had no headache and I suppose no brain swelling though, probably because I was still somewhat dehydrated. It's hard to know how much water I had, but I'm sure it was less than a gallon. The problem was more loss of sodium through sweat than excess of water. In my defense, I was 16 years old and this was in the time before sports drinks were popular.

[Kaylee]

:eek:

Glad you lived to tell the tale, Modified! :)

[Ian Osborne]

As I said, it's common sense that ingesting too much of something, anything, especially without excreting it, can't be good for your body.

Not necessarily. If it was a barstool bet you'd expect alarm bells to start ringing, but a competition organised by a respectable radio station should be safe.

[Perforatu]

The woman CHOSE to override a basic life instinct and paid the price. No need to feel sorry for her one whit.
Except she, nor the other contestants, nor the organizers, seems to have recognized it as a basic life instinct. If I hadn't heard of water poisoning I'm not sure I would have, either. It doesn't seem intuitive to me. The example you give about jumping, on the other hand, is very intuitive.

I suppose this has to do with what we learn as a child. Everyone knows falling can hurt. We've experienced it many times in our childhood, from the moment we learn to stand. On the other hand, few of us have ever held our wee beyond mild discomfort, so how are we to know it can be dangerous? It's non-intuitive.

I must admit your lack of sympathy for this woman does leave me puzzled somewhat - in fact it seems almost like an alien mindset. Hypothetically speaking, do you suppose you could ever feel sympathy for someone who was hurt as a result of their own actions, whether due to lack of knowledge or cognitive abilities? Is it conceivable that you yourself might ever get hurt as a result of your own actions, due to a lack of knowledge or cognitive abilities?

[Mashuna]

The woman CHOSE to override a basic life instinct and paid the price. No need to feel sorry for her one whit.

I must admit your lack of sympathy for this woman does leave me puzzled somewhat - in fact it seems almost like an alien mindset.

I don't know about alien. Nelson Muntz is the character that springs to mind :D

[Roboramma]

Not lost on me at all. And the things you point out are perfectly normal everyday overrides with rather little chance of fatality resulting.
How about brodski's airplane example? I'd appreciate it if you responded to that. It might make your viewpoint more clear.

Here'd be a non-normal override. You're 2 miles from your home which is at the bottom of a canyon. Your run uphill takes you to the top of the ledge which, if you'd just jump off, would peel 1.85 miles off your trip back. It'd be nice if you could define "non-normal override", and how it differs from a normal override.

That aside, the example you give clearly doesn't fit into the same category as the activity the woman engaged in. That is - the quality of jumping off a cliff that is different from forcing yourself to get out of bed in the morning, is that jumping off a cliff is obviously dangerous. This quality is not shared by drinking too much water. So just as a good incentive can get an intelligent person to override their instincts and get out of bed, so a good incentive could get an intelligent but uninformed person to override their instincts and enter that contest.

You started talking about "overrides" when people pointed out that drinking water and inhaling it are two different things so you can't equate the obvious fact that you can drown to the not so obvious fact that you can die from drinking too much water.

From what I read, you suggested that you don't concider her stupid not because it's obviously dangerous to drink too much water, but rather because her instincts would discourage her from doing so. She would have to actively overcome those.

The problem with this arugment, as was pointed out in the post you responded to, is that we do things all the time that require us to overcome our instinctive responses.
So now you're suggesting that those "normal overrides" are of course not stupid. Okay. What are? "Non-normal overrides"? Why? Because they are obviously dangerous, as in your jumping off a cliff example?

The problem here is that once again what she did wasn't obviously dangerous.

But there's a second problem: Some things that are obviously dangerous aren't stupid: I've jumped off a 20 meter cliff, because I knew full well that the water below was deep enough. Yet at the time I was terrified and had to overcome a serious survival instinct in order to jump. Even as I was falling I shouted out "Oh ****!!" the first time, anyway.
Was that stupid? Stupid enough that you'd have laughed if by some freak chance I'd died?

If you choose to jump, you'd do a stupid thing. You'd override a basic life instinct. Please don't try it. We need you here. :)
I don't see how "overriding a basic life instinct" is necessarily stupid. I could come up with examples all day of people doing just that in safe ways. Sometimes even not so safe ways, but where they know the risks. Here's an example (http://www.verticalblue.net/wr_attempt.html). Is he being stupid?
I ask this in seriousness in order to try to understand the criteria that you're using to determine that this woman is stupid.

[Dancing David]

You're FINALLY acknowledging that WATER has numerous KNOWN deleterious effects on the body. And the totally cool thing about this knowledge is that the BODY instinctively knows it and has mechanisms to ward off the danger... hence the larynx closing to prevent water inhalation. AND the instinct TO QUIT DRINKING WATER WHEN SATED.

It might be that such behaviors are biological but they are probably not instinctual.

Biological because there are people who have schizophrenia that feel compelled to drink water unitl they have 'water toxicity', so there is a biological mechanism that teel you when to drink and when to stoop.

But it would not be an instinctual stereotypic behavior.


So close to 100% of living breathing beings KNOW this to be true.

they might learn it but mindless assertion are always 99.9999% false.



What the idiot woman did was let her OWN greed override her natural self-preservation instinct

No such critter exists, could you cite your references please.


That's it. All in. All done. She's a dumbass who got carried away. Play Taps, shovel the dirt, lets HAVE A DRINK. Adios, babe.

Ah well, such sympathy is overwhelming. people do foolish things all the time, some are lethal some are not, driving over thye speed limit is another one.

[luchog]

sorry.
here listen to this, it should wipe your musical palate clean...

Heh, that's not bad; although I liked him better in Black Books.

[luchog]

And as a further derail (oops! ;)) Why is it when we're young and have so much more life ahead of us, do we risk it so easily, and as we get older, and have less life to look forward to, we get all scared and careful? ;)
I'm not sure that's always the case. I know in my case, the main reason is that I'm simply too out of shape to do the freeclimbing or other stupid things I enjoyed withn I was younger.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Actual clips from the show:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/kdndslides/

Apparently, the DJ specifically said that people couldn't die because they would just throw up if they drank to much. Also, the woman was showing what woudl have been clear signs of water intoxication to anyone who knew a damn thing about it and they just sent her home. If you tell someone to do something and specifically say it can't kill them and ignore signs that they're dying, you can't turn around and say it was their fault for believing you when they do die. I'm no lawyer, but that seemed to drip of criminal negligence to me.

[DanishDynamite]

Haven't read the whole thread, but there is no doubt that the woman who drank herself to death had only herself to blame.

We all have the basic responsibility for our own lives. Good thing too.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

DD, obviously you have to drawn the line somewhere. We don't say that a jogger who gets mugged and murdered should have known better than being in that part of town before sun-up. Where does this line go and why is this woman on the losing side? It would help if you listened to the actual show before responding.

[Pyrrho]

More here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/entertainment/printable2365259.shtml


CBS News station KOVR-TV reports that during the contest, a listener - self-identified as a nurse - called the live radio broadcast and warned that the game was dangerous.

"I want to say that those people drinking all that water can get sick and die from water intoxication," said the caller.

"Yeah, we're aware of that," replied a DJ, according to the broadcast news report. "They signed releases so we're not responsible, okay?"


"...we're aware of that..."


"My head hurts. They keep telling me that it's the water...that it will
tell my head to hurt and it'll make me puke." Strange told the DJ, live on the air, before leaving the station. "Who told you that, the intern?" was the DJ's response, according to the KOVR-TV news report on the radio show.


In all, according to witness reports, Strange may have drunk nearly two gallons. Afterward, she appeared ill when she went on the air, one contestant said.

So, someone knew that there would be ill effects, and they knew this woman was ill. If you run a contest that may make people ill, and you know it, are you not responsible for possible medical emergencies that may result from that contest? Or are you excused because you make people sign waivers?

[This Guy]

Actual clips from the show:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/kdndslides/

Apparently, the DJ specifically said that people couldn't die because they would just throw up if they drank to much. Also, the woman was showing what woudl have been clear signs of water intoxication to anyone who knew a damn thing about it and they just sent her home. If you tell someone to do something and specifically say it can't kill them and ignore signs that they're dying, you can't turn around and say it was their fault for believing you when they do die. I'm no lawyer, but that seemed to drip of criminal negligence to me.

yea, in the chit chat that was going on, I think it was the female DJ that brought up the possibility of water intoxications, and even made the statement "we should have researched this" or words to that effect. Now, unfortunately, the nurse, if she was a nurse, that called backed off when the male DJ made his remark about the body causing you to throw up and get rid of the water. Sounds like she either wasn't sure, wasn't a well trained nurse (at least regarding water intox.) or just wasn't willing/able to challenge the DJ on the sir.

In any event, it sounds like there were enough flags raised that they should have checked this stunt out. And it does sound obvious (in hind sight) that the lady was in a state of water intox. If the DJs had only learned enough about what they were doing, to have taken a few precautions, she might still be alive.

Again, I don't think there was any malice involved. I think the bottom line is that what was intended to be a fun event, with a popular prize, turned tragic. It's sad for all involved. And could have been avoided fairly easily IMHO.

[DanishDynamite]

DD, obviously you have to drawn the line somewhere. We don't say that a jogger who gets mugged and murdered should have known better than being in that part of town before sun-up. Where does this line go and why is this woman on the losing side? It would help if you listened to the actual show before responding.
You are probably right.

I just can't imagine any scenario concerning a Radio Prize and drinking yourself to death, that doesn't allow for a few minutes of contemplation by the drinkee.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

You are probably right.

I just can't imagine any scenario concerning a Radio Prize and drinking yourself to death, that doesn't allow for a few minutes of contemplation by the drinkee.

Your lack of imagination isn't an argument.

ETA: Isn't the water the drinkee?

[DanishDynamite]

Your lack of imagination isn't an argument.
I think it is, in this case.
ETA: Isn't the water the drinkee?I would have thought the water was the "drinkate". No?

[This Guy]

I think it is, in this case.
I would have thought the water was the "drinkate". No?

I think the water would be the drunk.

No, wait, that's me (hic)

Never mind ;)

[ZirconBlue]

So, wait now. My instincts tell me to eat a lot of fatty foods, even though I'm overweight and have high cholesterol. So, I should listen to my instincts, right?

[Silly Green Monkey]

Higher education won't always cut it. As a senior in college, in molecular biology, a classmate responded "but it's not like you can die from just drinking water....." The teacher told her that you could indeed die from drinking water, but this girl (who would have had to have a minor in chemistry, just like me) had never heard of it. As has been said before, it's completely counterintuitive that this stuff we chug in large amounts already to stay alive could kill us if we only drank a little more.

[fuelair]

Not to the perfect!! Or so they seem to claim!

[Kaylee]

The Sacremento Bee reports that 10 members of KDND-FM, AKA E107.9 - The End, have been fired in the wake of a controversial radio stunt resulting in a 28 year old mother’s death. The prize–a Nintendo Wii.
….
In addition, TSSZ News has learned exclusively that this could not come at a worse time for KDND. The station’s FCC license is up for renewal and is up against a "Petition for Denial" in the hopes the station’s ability to broadcast will be revokes due to inability to perform in the interest of the community it is serving.
Source: http://www.tssznews.com Emphasis mine.

Actual clips from the show:

http://www.sacbee.com/static/newsroom/kdndslides/

I couldn't download this, anyone else have this problem?

If you tell someone to do something and specifically say it can't kill them and ignore signs that they're dying, you can't turn around and say it was their fault for believing you when they do die. I'm no lawyer, but that seemed to drip of criminal negligence to me.

I agree, especially since it seems the DJ knew that dying was a risk and that information was not given to the contestants. Hopefully the sheriff's office will see it that way too. The Sacromento Sheriff's office is currently looking into it and deciding whether a crime was committed. This is per an article in the upper right corner on the Sacramento Bees' home page @ today (Jan 17). The paper has a nasty javascript which is preventing me from doing a cut and paste but anyone who wants to can check it out for hirself:
www.sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com)

[Kaylee]

Haven't read the whole thread, but there is no doubt ....

In other words: "I'm not going to read your opinions, but I want you to read mine!"

:confused: :D

[Earthborn]

The paper has a nasty javascript which is preventing me from doing a cut and paste but anyone who wants to can check it out for hirself:
www.sacbee.com (http://www.sacbee.com)I think you are referring to this (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/109112.html).

[Architect]

The legal position is quite clear:

1. The radio station should have taken medical advice. If it did not do so, then it is negligent.

2. If the radio station took or were given advice, and failed to follow it, then it is negligent.

3. A waiver would not be effective where the full facts (ie risks) were not made clear to participant, and even then in most Western countries there would be strict limits.

[ponderingturtle]

So, wait now. My instincts tell me to eat a lot of fatty foods, even though I'm overweight and have high cholesterol. So, I should listen to my instincts, right?

Yep, instincts are always right.

I also learned that I have no obligation to slow down if someone steps out infront of my car, after all everyone knows the roads are dangerous and have cars on them, so it is their decision to take the risk.

[Architect]

And why are we wasting all that money on anti-smoking campaigns? After all, everyone knows that cigarettes are dangerous. And we sould stop treating smokers in hospital too, 'cause it's their own fault.

[dann]

Hell, we should abolish hospitals altogether. They are just so anti Darwin. Curing the unfit?!!

[JonnyFive]

I think they (the radio station employees) are up s*** creek without a paddle, legally speaking. Apparently, their waiver didn't cover health or safety issues (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/108103.html). They appear to have lacked any kind of medical advice or attention at all, and that will figure into a negligence trial heavily.

The people that run these things have some responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of participants. For example, having an EMT, paramedic, or other medical professional on hand to observe the contestants to pull them if they show signs of water intoxication.

There is also some legal precedent, albeit in a slightly different context: The case of Matthew Carrington (http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=oid%3A33779).

The fact that they laughed off the very idea of water intoxication at least twice, though they were clearly aware of it, will almost certainly hurt them. The fact that the host(s) believed that you will just throw it up when you've had too much water, and that you can drink as much as you want show that they did not consult with a medical professional before hand.

By the end of the contest, Jennifer is clearly displaying signs of intoxication. She has slurred speech and reports a painful headache, both classic signs of water intoxication. She also appears somewhat confused. At that point, she needed to go immediately to an emergency room. An EMT on scene would have been trained to recognize these signs and take appropriate action. Instead they sent her home, and she died.

Although participating in this contest wasn't the smartest thing to do, I hardly can say I blame her for her own death. Water intoxication doesn't seem to be widely known. As confusion is also one of the main symptoms (as one of the organs most effected is the brain), you can't rely on the victim of water intoxication to necessarily take proper steps to ensure their own survival. She may have felt terrible, but that doesn't necessarily translate into her being fully aware of the bad shape she was in, and the need to immediately seek emergency medical attention.

Making the contestants aware of those risks, as well as managing them, is the responsibility of the people running the contest. They seemed grossly ignorant of the medical implications of their contest.

It would not surprise me if one or more of the people involved in this are convicted of some kind of criminal negligence, possibly resulting in jail time. A civil suit against the station or the employees will also almost certainly result, and will most likely be a success.

If the contestant was fully aware of all the risks and ignored all medical advice, then it would truly be her fault, and she would be an idiot. However, the attitude of the station employees I've heard audio of seems to be fairly dismissive of the real dangers of their contest, and they clearly had no medical personnel involved in the planning or running of this stupid contest.

[ponderingturtle]

By the end of the contest, Jennifer is clearly displaying signs of intoxication. She has slurred speech and reports a painful headache, both classic signs of water intoxication. She also appears somewhat confused. At that point, she needed to go immediately to an emergency room. An EMT on scene would have been trained to recognize these signs and take appropriate action. Instead they sent her home, and she died.
Not nessacarily. They never mentioned water intoxication in the EMT classes I took. But the altered mental should be a red flag to any one with medical training.

[Architect]

It would not surprise me if one or more of the people involved in this are convicted of some kind of criminal negligence, possibly resulting in jail time. A civil suit against the station or the employees will also almost certainly result, and will most likely be a success.
.


I assume that US law is not particularly different from this country, where the organisers would be looking at:

1. A potential criminal culpible homicide charge (effectively manslaughter, as opposed to murder)

2. Criminal prosecution under health & safety legislation

3. A civil case for negligence.

Aye, well up the creek.....hey, where did the paddle go?

[JonnyFive]

Not nessacarily. They never mentioned water intoxication in the EMT classes I took. But the altered mental should be a red flag to any one with medical training.

Point taken about the EMT classes. So they probably should have found an EMT with relevant experience. I know the EMTs that work marathons are trained to recognize water intoxication, as it frequently (relatively) occurs when endurance runners drink too much water without replacing the salt their body is also losing.

That's what I mean, anyone with some medical training who knew what the contest was about and what the risks were would have noticed something. What, with the whole distended belly, massive headache, slurred speech, and confusion.

Listening the audio from right before she quits, she sounds like she's drunk.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to brief an unfamiliar EMT in the basics of water intoxication.

But nope, they had some intern who noted she looked sick.

[Architect]

Just to show how far health & safety responsibility goes in the UK, I'm going to give you a current construction related example.

Traditionally, in-line polycarbonate rooflights are used to provide daylighting in profiled steel clad industrial buildings. Now everyone - designers, contractors, maintenance teams - know that polycarb is non-loadbearing and can't be walked on. But every year, one or two contractors manage to do it and hurt themselves.

It is now the specifiers (ie the architects) who will be found jointly liable, even though everyone is aware of the risks.

Why? Because where health and safety is concerned we have to adopy a precautionary principal AND it was a surefired way to make sure that people stoped installing them.

Overkill (no pun intended)? Undoubtedly, in my view.

Effective? Undoubtedly.

[JonnyFive]

I assume that US law is not particularly different from this country, where the organisers would be looking at:

1. A potential criminal culpible homicide charge (effectively manslaughter, as opposed to murder)

2. Criminal prosecution under health & safety legislation

3. A civil case for negligence.

Aye, well up the creek.....hey, where did the paddle go?

Oh, I miss those law classes I took in university. This case would probably provide a nice criminal law discussion.

IIRC, in order to prove any negligence, the prosecution has to establish that there was some duty to care involved (the hosts must have had some duty to protect the contestants/inform them of risks/whatever), and the hosts must be shown to have failed to act as a reasonable person.

They will be exposed to what we call in the US "criminally negligent homicide", which basically means they had no intention of killing the person, but failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent death. Again, the "reasonable person" standard is used. What exactly that standard means will depend on the jury, ultimately.

I don't know about health and safety legislation, because I'm not at all familiar with whatever law in California might apply. I'm not sure if they would have violated any regulations that aren't already covered by a criminally negligent homicide case.

[JonnyFive]

Why? Because where health and safety is concerned we have to adopy a precautionary principal AND it was a surefired way to make sure that people stoped installing them.

Overkill (no pun intended)? Undoubtedly, in my view.

Effective? Undoubtedly.

That's an interesting example. Is there any difference in liability if a warning is posted? In US law, in many cases, liability in such matters can be reduced through the posting of a warning.

[Architect]

That's an interesting example. Is there any difference in liability if a warning is posted? In US law, in many cases, liability in such matters can be reduced through the posting of a warning.

Generally speaking no, not in the slightest, on the basis that it could be kids, foreigners, or signs might not be sufficiently prominent.

There's a really interesting case involving Tesco and British Rail that I have to find a link for too, which essentially says that you have to assume that the public are complete idiots. I'll have a look later on and let you know if I find it.

[ponderingturtle]

Point taken about the EMT classes. So they probably should have found an EMT with relevant experience. I know the EMTs that work marathons are trained to recognize water intoxication, as it frequently (relatively) occurs when endurance runners drink too much water without replacing the salt their body is also losing.

That's what I mean, anyone with some medical training who knew what the contest was about and what the risks were would have noticed something. What, with the whole distended belly, massive headache, slurred speech, and confusion.

My point was the the risks are not obvious even to people with some medical background, as it is rare enough that it is not a primary concern. Now mabey paramedic courses cover it, I will try to check with my brother and find out as he recently got his national medic(he was a NYS medic for at least a decade before that)

BUt the real thing that should trip anyone with medical training is the altered mental regardless of their understanding of its specific mechanism dangers in this case.

[JonnyFive]

There's a really interesting case involving Tesco and British Rail that I have to find a link for too, which essentially says that you have to assume that the public are complete idiots. I'll have a look later on and let you know if I find it.

That would be good, thanks. I'm always up for reading interesting cases.

Here it's possible that warnings will reduce liability in certain cases. There is some idea that, after a certain point, you take your life into your own hands and are fully liable for whatever happens. As I understand it, the initially liable party (such as the property owner) has to take reasonable precautions to ensure the safety of, say, workers. In some cases having a series of prominent signs saying "this crap won't support your weight, dummy!" might be sufficient to meet that standard. It would really depend on the specifics of the case.

In the case of the contest, the organizers are the ones who have to meet the reasonableness standards. If they had done so, then the death would be totally the fault of the contestant involved. Then again, if they'd met those standards she probably wouldn't have died, because she would've most likely been taken to a hospital rather than simply going home.

Out of curiosity, the UK health/safety law you talk about: would that apply to criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, both, or something else?

[ponderingturtle]

Generally speaking no, not in the slightest, on the basis that it could be kids, foreigners, or signs might not be sufficiently prominent.

There's a really interesting case involving Tesco and British Rail that I have to find a link for too, which essentially says that you have to assume that the public are complete idiots. I'll have a look later on and let you know if I find it.

I know my dad gets frustarated dealing with people suing the company he works for blaming the company for their not useing safety equipment and getting hurt as a result. You would think providing it and telling people is enough, and it might be, but it is often cheaper to settle than to fight and win.

[JonnyFive]

My point was the the risks are not obvious even to people with some medical background, as it is rare enough that it is not a primary concern. Now mabey paramedic courses cover it, I will try to check with my brother and find out as he recently got his national medic(he was a NYS medic for at least a decade before that)

BUt the real thing that should trip anyone with medical training is the altered mental regardless of their understanding of its specific mechanism dangers in this case.

Good point. The hosts don't seem to have demonstrated any awareness of that.

[Kaylee]

I think you are referring to this (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/109112.html).


Thanks Earthborn. There was no message saying that one had to be registered in order to cut and paste, but that did make the difference. I still can't play the audio clips though…

Here's some more updates: More than one nurse warned the DJs about the lethal dangers of water intoxication and a civil lawsuit will be officially announced soon.

Judith Linder, a nurse practitioner (http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/108430-p2.html), said she heard the Morning Rave show when she was driving into work in North Highlands on Friday morning. She found it troubling. She and two co-workers called the radio station on a speaker phone, and their comments that water intoxication can be dangerous were part of the broadcast.

A DJ retorted, asking them why they didn't join the contest. Linder said they replied: We don't want to die.

"I was thinking, 'Who else could I call?' Endangering someone's health should be against the law," Linder said.

Its really unfortunate she didn't know who else to call. I would have thought asking to speak to their manger or the owner of the station would be obvious to any adult who ever held a job, and if she couldn't get through to them then the next step would be to call the city or county's health department -- but apparently not.

At least these nurses tried, I still find it difficult to believe that no one else called in to warn that this was a dangerous stunt. I also find it difficult to believe that no one called in to criticize the DJs response to the nurses warnings. (Basically the dialogue was this: Nurses: "These people could die!" DJs: "Oh that's OK! They signed a waiver!") Perhaps the reason is that the audience thought the contenstants could hear the phone calls since they could hear the contestants?

Sacramento attorney Roger Dreyer will be announcing a wrongful death lawsuit Thursday in the death of Jennifer Strange (http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/109805.html), 28, a Rancho Cordova mother of three who died hours after a water-drinking contest at a local radio station.

The suit will be filed against The End (KDND 107.9 FM) on behalf of Strange's husband and three children, ages 11 months, 3 and 10 years, according to a Sacramento public relations firm.
…
McGeorge School of Law civil torts professor Lawrence Levine said previously that a civil suit likely would be successful, since there are indications that the disc jockeys knew of the dangers of water intoxication while they goaded competitors to keep drinking. He said the jury also will be asked to consider the social value of the contest -- which he characterized as low.

"I think a jury is going to be quite unsympathetic (to the station)," Levine said.

All emphases added to the quotes are mine.

[brodski]

Overkill (no pun intended)? Undoubtedly, in my view.


Ah, the fallout of the CDM regs, probably the least understood of all UK health and safety legislation- even by those that enforce it.

[brodski]

Generally speaking no, not in the slightest, on the basis that it could be kids, foreigners, or signs might not be sufficiently prominent.
Well, safety signs have to be able to convey their message (largely) through the standardized EU pictorgrams, sign shape and colour. So they should be pretty universally understood, even by those that cannot read English.
A safety sign is a good way to reduce criminal liability (if only by avoiding prosecution under the Safety Signs and Signal regs).


There's a really interesting case involving Tesco and British Rail that I have to find a link for too, which essentially says that you have to assume that the public are complete idiots. I'll have a look later on and let you know if I find it.

I'd be interested to see that, how old is the case?

[Architect]

I'd be interested to see that, how old is the case?

Well I saw it quoted by a solicitor (dangerous building project we were working on) back around 98 or 99, but how much before that I can't recall.

The solicitor and I still speak regulary on the project, so I'll give him a call.

[brodski]

Out of curiosity, the UK health/safety law you talk about: would that apply to criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, both, or something else?

Both, the legislation is concerned (largely) with criminal matters, however the Civil courts look at what is required by law as well as what is standard industry practice when deciding on things such as determining whether a duty of care existed, and whether that duty was breached.

The whole basis of the law can be summed up in two sections from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

General duties of employers to their employees.
2. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

and

General duties of employers and self-employed to persons other than their employees.
3. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety.

Thats it basically it. If you run a business (or other undertaking) don't hurt anyone who works for you, and don't hurt anyone who doesn't work for you, so far as is practicable.
Under that a number of regulations are made, requiring certain things (such as risk assessments) or proscribe certain activities.
there are also Approved Codes of Practice and then just regular guidance, which can also have some bearing on a Civil case.

[brodski]

Well I saw it quoted by a solicitor (dangerous building project we were working on) back around 98 or 99, but how much before that I can't recall.

The solicitor and I still speak regulary on the project, so I'll give him a call.

I'll have a look myself. I left the HSE in 2003, but I have notes on landmark cases before that, I'll see if I can find a reference to the case you're talking about.

[JonnyFive]

Thats it basically it. If you run a business (or other undertaking) don't hurt anyone who works for you, and don't hurt anyone who doesn't work for you, so far as is practicable.
Under that a number of regulations are made, requiring certain things (such as risk assessments) or proscribe certain activities.
there are also Approved Codes of Practice and then just regular guidance, which can also have some bearing on a Civil case.

Sounds like, in practical terms, it's pretty similar to US law. We get some silly cases, but generally speaking avoiding liability is about taking reasonable precautions to avoid hurting your employees or others.

Anyhow, it's all beyond the scope of this particular case. They were way out of line by not even informing the contestants of the potential risk and consulting with medical professionals (or not listening to them, if they did). I just don't see that reasonableness standard being met here.

[brodski]

Sounds like, in practical terms, it's pretty similar to US law. We get some silly cases, but generally speaking avoiding liability is about taking reasonable precautions to avoid hurting your employees or others.

Anyhow, it's all beyond the scope of this particular case. They were way out of line by not even informing the contestants of the potential risk and consulting with medical professionals (or not listening to them, if they did). I just don't see that reasonableness standard being met here.

Well in a UK case the first thing that investigators (and lawyers for the deceased's family) would ask to see would be the risk assessment for the contest. If they didn't do one, they then will have pretty much lost- both criminally and in civil court. If they did do one but didn't follow it- ditto.
If they did do one,a nd followed it- it could not have been done very well, but the may possibly have some sort of defense ( but I doubt it).

[JonnyFive]

Well in a UK case the first thing that investigators (and lawyers for the deceased's family) would ask to see would be the risk assessment for the contest. If they didn't do one, they then will have pretty much lost- both criminally and in civil court. If they did do one but didn't follow it- ditto.
If they did do one,a nd followed it- it could not have been done very well, but the may possibly have some sort of defense ( but I doubt it).

That's not something that I've heard of in US cases before. I might be misinformed, but I'm pretty sure that a risk assessment wouldn't be present with a US case.

Tell me, does the UK system also involve the concept of the "reasonable person" with negligence cases?

In the US, that's the golden ticket when it comes to negligence, either by a person or by an organization.

[brodski]

That's not something that I've heard of in US cases before. I might be misinformed, but I'm pretty sure that a risk assessment wouldn't be present with a US case. In the Uk not carrying out a risk assessment (except for small undertakings) is a criminal offense, regardless of whether anyone was injured or not.


Tell me, does the UK system also involve the concept of the "reasonable person" with negligence cases?

In the US, that's the golden ticket when it comes to negligence, either by a person or by an organization.

I don't know. As I said most of my knowledge is on the criminal aspects rather than civil. What i would say though is that (much like in the US) the perception of the number of stupid cases which actually win (the apocryphal woman in a shop tripping over her own unruly kids and then suing etc) is much, much lower than the reality.
The trouble is, this perception- and the willingness of insurance companies to settle out of court rather than face large legal bills, means that many businesses act as if they do have to protect people to a ridicules degree, no matter how irresponsible the person- which means that many perfectly safe activities are prohibited by the businesses own health and safety policy, or by constraints put on them in insurance polices.

[carlvs]

I have a question - could the Nintendo corporation sue over this matter?

The reason I bring this up is something I notice in the gaming blog Shera had linked to in her post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2266594#post2266594) yesterday where it mentioned the FCC problems the radio station was having before this debacle. I remember the last line of the item stating that they will continue to follow FCC story, or "if Nintendo gets involved..." (this may not be the exact quote, but since I am at work I doubt I could access the blog to get the correct wording.)

[JonnyFive]

In the Uk not carrying out a risk assessment (except for small undertakings) is a criminal offense, regardless of whether anyone was injured or not.

Gotcha. We've got nothing generally comparable in the US, as far as I know.

I don't know. As I said most of my knowledge is on the criminal aspects rather than civil. What i would say though is that (much like in the US) the perception of the number of stupid cases which actually win (the apocryphal woman in a shop tripping over her own unruly kids and then suing etc) is much, much lower than the reality.
The trouble is, this perception- and the willingness of insurance companies to settle out of court rather than face large legal bills, means that many businesses act as if they do have to protect people to a ridicules degree, no matter how irresponsible the person- which means that many perfectly safe activities are prohibited by the businesses own health and safety policy, or by constraints put on them in insurance polices.

The high legal cost and settlements can be a massive cost as well. Even though the suit might be ridiculous, the company or individual being sued has to pay to defend themselves or settle the case. Even if the case is tossed out, the lawyers' fees can be considerable.

Of course, this can have an impact on the cost of everything, as the company needs to pay for those lawyers somehow.

[Dave1001]

I heard the audio from this contest played at length today on another radio program. It was pretty freaky. A caller called in during the contest and specifically warned that the contest will probably kill a contestant due to water intoxication. The radio jocks said (sarcastically) "yeah we know. That's why we had them all sign waivers. Haha. Hey, are any of our contestants dead yet?" Then, near the end of the contest when the (soon to die) contestant dropped out, she was speaking in a pained voice and complaining about headaches. The DJ's did nothing to suggest she seek any medical help or evaluation. They just sent her home. They said an intern told her he body would naturally make her throw up if she needed to.

The negligence seems so high that I think the radio dj's and management face potential criminal liability.

[This Guy]

I heard the audio from this contest played at length today on another radio program. It was pretty freaky. A caller called in during the contest and specifically warned that the contest will probably kill a contestant due to water intoxication. The radio jocks said (sarcastically) "yeah we know. That's why we had them all sign waivers. Haha. Hey, are any of our contestants dead yet?" Then, near the end of the contest when the (soon to die) contestant dropped out, she was speaking in a pained voice and complaining about headaches. The DJ's did nothing to suggest she seek any medical help or evaluation. They just sent her home. They said an intern told her he body would naturally make her throw up if she needed to.

The negligence seems so high that I think the radio dj's and management face potential criminal liability.


OK Dave! We get the point! ;)

I'm sure most people know this, but I've seen it mentioned, and heard it in the audio of the broadcast, and feel compelled to make mention of the fact that in pretty much all cases when a DJ talks about an intern in the studio, they are referring to a Radio Intern. Not a Doctor doing his/her stint at a local university hospital to finish their education. So, I think it's safe to say that the intern in this case is just someone trying to break into the radio industry (as a DJ I suppose, but don't know).

Again, I don't think that's new news to many, but wanted to clarify in case :)

[Dave1001]

OK Dave! We get the point! ;)

I'm sure most people know this, but I've seen it mentioned, and heard it in the audio of the broadcast, and feel compelled to make mention of the fact that in pretty much all cases when a DJ talks about an intern in the studio, they are referring to a Radio Intern. Not a Doctor doing his/her stint at a local university hospital to finish their education. So, I think it's safe to say that the intern in this case is just someone trying to break into the radio industry (as a DJ I suppose, but don't know).

Again, I don't think that's new news to many, but wanted to clarify in case :)

Good point. Intern could be misconstrued as medical doctor, but I don't think it's commonly used that way by lay people in the U.S. I think most Americans understood it to mean Radio Intern, as you say.