C
content
Guest
Johnny Morgan said:
"A Reasonable person would ask these things" Are you referring to the contestant or the hosts?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
"A Reasonable person would ask these things" Are you referring to the contestant or the hosts?
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
Either.
Problem is, in California, it's a comparative negligence state, which means that in a lawsuit, any negligence or fault of the plaintiff (contestant) does not bar recovery of damages, but merely reduces the amount of recovery the plaintiff could recover.
If the reasonable contestant should have asked these things of herself (and she probably should have), the reasonable hosts and station mangement should also have asked these things of all the contestants.
Not doing so is probably a breach of duty.
Problem is, in California, it's a comparative negligence state, which means that in a lawsuit, any negligence or fault of the plaintiff (contestant) does not bar recovery of damages, but merely reduces the amount of recovery the plaintiff could recover.
If the reasonable contestant should have asked these things of herself (and she probably should have), the reasonable hosts and station mangement should also have asked these things of all the contestants.
Not doing so is probably a breach of duty.
Interesting Question
OK. I just can't help myself...
If you get in your car DRUNK ONE time, take to the roads, and you hit and kill someone, does that make you a bad person? Are there consequences? Yes.
You are not suddenly a BAD person. Yes, you are.
Do they take your car away? Yes, they do.
They also throw your A$$ in jail for, depending on the circumstances and the state, vehicular homicide, criminally negligent homicide, or manslaughter. A civil suit is very likely to cost you your savings, and garnished wages for the years. If you got drunk at an office party, the company, the bartender, and the caterer will also likely be named in the suit, and they and/or their insurance company will end up paying as well.
One more time - Google search for water intoxication - first listing, third paragraph:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.[2] Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet. However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication. The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
That should be enough at least prompt someone to make a call to a competent medical professional before running this contest, and providing over two gallons of water to contestants. BTW, exercise may actually raise the threshold because you are eliminating water through perspiration.
I know that some of you don't like the source. I know that some of you don't agree. I'm perfectly willing to let a jury decide this one. I doubt that Entercom will ever let it get there.
OK. I just can't help myself...
If you get in your car DRUNK ONE time, take to the roads, and you hit and kill someone, does that make you a bad person? Are there consequences? Yes.
You are not suddenly a BAD person. Yes, you are.
Do they take your car away? Yes, they do.
They also throw your A$$ in jail for, depending on the circumstances and the state, vehicular homicide, criminally negligent homicide, or manslaughter. A civil suit is very likely to cost you your savings, and garnished wages for the years. If you got drunk at an office party, the company, the bartender, and the caterer will also likely be named in the suit, and they and/or their insurance company will end up paying as well.
One more time - Google search for water intoxication - first listing, third paragraph:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.[2] Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet. However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication. The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
That should be enough at least prompt someone to make a call to a competent medical professional before running this contest, and providing over two gallons of water to contestants. BTW, exercise may actually raise the threshold because you are eliminating water through perspiration.
I know that some of you don't like the source. I know that some of you don't agree. I'm perfectly willing to let a jury decide this one. I doubt that Entercom will ever let it get there.
C
content
Guest
I don't think there's any doubt that the plaintiffs (contestant's family) will get a financial settlement under California law. However, I get irritated by the thought that the station's broadcast license should be taken away (or that Entercom should not be able to buy other radio stations) because of this unfortuntate incident.
Also, is anyone else sickened by the opportunists who are beginning to emerge? (ie Mancow)
Also, is anyone else sickened by the opportunists who are beginning to emerge? (ie Mancow)
C
content
Guest
Also, this is not an endorsement of drunk driving. But, because someone drives drunk does not automatically make them a bad person. It may mean they have an alcohol problem/addiction which interferes with good judgement.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
No doubt, and I'm sure you agree here, that this situation should be looked at by the FCC. Is it an end-all that means Entercom should have this (or all) its licenses stripped? No.
But this situation should be properly considered along with other examples of Entercom malfeasance (payola allegations) and weighed against Entercom's service to Sacramento and its other facilities, incluidng community involvement, public affairs/interest, and licensee conduct.
Just as it is wrong to state affirmatively that their license(s) should be stripped, it is equally as wrong to state affirmatively that they should NOT be stripped. We have to look at the big picture, not one single example, no matter how egregious.
And, since it's been invoked: it took the FCC almost 20 years to rack up enough to yank RKO-General's licenses. That was more than enough time for RKO-General to make tons of dough off Bill Drake, tires, and Rangers hockey. The allegations at issue in RKO dated back to KHJ-TV in 1965!!!--and then got worse as more stuff was uncovered (the fancy finances) in the intervening years.
C
cabradio
Guest
Re: Interesting Question
What the hell is this? Did I say DRUNK? YOU SirRoxalot have ADDED "DRUNK" to TWIST what I said. Read it again! I SAID IF YOU TAKE TO THE ROAD...and I meant SOBER....Where, tell me WHERE did I even IMPLY being drunk? By taking "proper precaution" I meant...not looking both ways going through an intersection, or yeilding to a pedestrian...I was giving an analogy using what would have been an honest ACCIDENT in my example. Nice try....
No wonder you don't understand.....
AGAIN...the EXAMPLE cited says "low sodium diet"...Or is this one of your "twist it to fit my arguement " posts? Must be because, What normal healthy person is on a LOW SODIUM diet? The reason for the LOW SODIUM would LIKELY mean they have HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE...
Someone with HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE should NOT be participating in an ENDURANCE CONTEST...
At least you are starting to get it...the main reason Water Intoxication happens IS EXERCISE, which causes you to sweat, which means your body is excreting SODIUM which will cause your electroltyes to become imbalanced....ALOT has to happen to the body BESIDES the water consumption for someone to BEGIN to suffer from WATER INTOXICATION....
SirRoxalot said:
What the hell is this? Did I say DRUNK? YOU SirRoxalot have ADDED "DRUNK" to TWIST what I said. Read it again! I SAID IF YOU TAKE TO THE ROAD...and I meant SOBER....Where, tell me WHERE did I even IMPLY being drunk? By taking "proper precaution" I meant...not looking both ways going through an intersection, or yeilding to a pedestrian...I was giving an analogy using what would have been an honest ACCIDENT in my example. Nice try....
No wonder you don't understand.....
SirRoxalot said:
AGAIN...the EXAMPLE cited says "low sodium diet"...Or is this one of your "twist it to fit my arguement " posts? Must be because, What normal healthy person is on a LOW SODIUM diet? The reason for the LOW SODIUM would LIKELY mean they have HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE...
Someone with HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE should NOT be participating in an ENDURANCE CONTEST...
SirRoxalot said:
At least you are starting to get it...the main reason Water Intoxication happens IS EXERCISE, which causes you to sweat, which means your body is excreting SODIUM which will cause your electroltyes to become imbalanced....ALOT has to happen to the body BESIDES the water consumption for someone to BEGIN to suffer from WATER INTOXICATION....
SirRoxalot said:
C
cabradio
Guest
Re: Interesting Question
Let's take another look at your example, SirRoxalot. But I don't know what site you are getting it from. People's Google results are not all the same (please provide the actual link):
So this part, in and of itself MAY lead one to think that a person with HEALTHY KIDNEYS and "on a normal diet" can only consume a little less than a gallon at one sitting. BUT you failed to read on, because the article says HOWEVER:
That means other than urination, like sweating. Now, the contest was to "Hold Your Wee"...and there was NO exercising, so, NO or very little sweating going on, unless someone was seriously perspiring.
So, it is REASONABLE to assume, YES ASSUME, that Water Intoxication happens BECAUSE of the LOSS of FLUIDS AND the NON-REPLENTISHING of electrolytes LOST as a result of URINATION and/or SWEAT. Not just because someone is consuming alot of fluids, according to this example.
Since the contest DIDN'T allow the contestants to urinate, and they were not exercising, the electrolytes were not LOST during the contest, unless someone couldn't hold it any longer. They (the electrolytes) were diluted, yes, but not lost. So YOUR EXAMPLE, clearly states that the CONSUMPTION ALONE does not attribute to WATER INTOXICATION. Because, (I'll explain it again, I know this is complex for some) when you drink lots and lots of water and then urinate you flush out the electrolytes, and if the electrolytes are not replenished in a timely manner (probably within an hour or two), you can THEN begin to suffer from Water Intoxication (you start exhibiting symptoms: dizzyness, headaches, vomiting). If you sweat in addition to urinate, then you are INCREASING THE RISK of Water Intoxication. BUT, the contest didn't allow the contestants to urinate and they were not exercising, so they were not losing their electrolytes.
NOW...here is where I see the fault of Entercom on this, based on this explanation that SirRoxalot has provided. If all the contestants upon elimination or completion then urinated and did not eat or drink something (like a Gatorade type drink, or Saltine type crackers) that would have the nutrients to balance out the electrolytes, then THAT is what could be dangerous. It's NOT the actual consumption of the water, but not replenishing the electrolytes lost in the dilution, and in the eliminating waste. This is where the health care professional could have made a difference, making sure that everyone had a couple crackers, after urinating and before leaving. The promotion could have tied Red Cross into it and had "an audience" giving blood, while the contestants drank the H20. The Red Cross Medics could have monitored the contestants and provided the "nutrients" to ensure the electrolytes remained in balance.
I will state again that HEALTHY people actually DIEING from water intoxication is extremely RARE, doesn't happen enough to matter, really (I don't mean to trivialize the life that was lost but what I mean is it's not like an epidemic where millions die each year from it). All the other contestants rebounded fine. And they were probably not in danger of dieing either, because they were otherwise HEALTHY. There is something we are not being told by the Strange Family about Jennifer's condition that would put her over the edge. As I have stated in other posts, there could be medication or health problem involved, etc etc. Anyway I stand by my belief that it is incumbant upon the contestant to know what their health situation is, and to not participate in ENDURANCE CONTESTS if they have a less than A Grade on the report card, and to not rely on a DJ or any radio Station Staff to tell them if they are fit. I will ALWAYS refer to my OWN DOCTOR to tell me if I am fit for anything, not a DJ or Radio Station Staff, or even a paramedic standing by...because the paramedic can only base his/her decision to allow you to participate based on information YOU provide. If YOU lie...you could DIE.
Let's take another look at your example, SirRoxalot. But I don't know what site you are getting it from. People's Google results are not all the same (please provide the actual link):
SirRoxalot said:
So this part, in and of itself MAY lead one to think that a person with HEALTHY KIDNEYS and "on a normal diet" can only consume a little less than a gallon at one sitting. BUT you failed to read on, because the article says HOWEVER:
SirRoxalot said:
That means other than urination, like sweating. Now, the contest was to "Hold Your Wee"...and there was NO exercising, so, NO or very little sweating going on, unless someone was seriously perspiring.
SirRoxalot said:
So, it is REASONABLE to assume, YES ASSUME, that Water Intoxication happens BECAUSE of the LOSS of FLUIDS AND the NON-REPLENTISHING of electrolytes LOST as a result of URINATION and/or SWEAT. Not just because someone is consuming alot of fluids, according to this example.
Since the contest DIDN'T allow the contestants to urinate, and they were not exercising, the electrolytes were not LOST during the contest, unless someone couldn't hold it any longer. They (the electrolytes) were diluted, yes, but not lost. So YOUR EXAMPLE, clearly states that the CONSUMPTION ALONE does not attribute to WATER INTOXICATION. Because, (I'll explain it again, I know this is complex for some) when you drink lots and lots of water and then urinate you flush out the electrolytes, and if the electrolytes are not replenished in a timely manner (probably within an hour or two), you can THEN begin to suffer from Water Intoxication (you start exhibiting symptoms: dizzyness, headaches, vomiting). If you sweat in addition to urinate, then you are INCREASING THE RISK of Water Intoxication. BUT, the contest didn't allow the contestants to urinate and they were not exercising, so they were not losing their electrolytes.
NOW...here is where I see the fault of Entercom on this, based on this explanation that SirRoxalot has provided. If all the contestants upon elimination or completion then urinated and did not eat or drink something (like a Gatorade type drink, or Saltine type crackers) that would have the nutrients to balance out the electrolytes, then THAT is what could be dangerous. It's NOT the actual consumption of the water, but not replenishing the electrolytes lost in the dilution, and in the eliminating waste. This is where the health care professional could have made a difference, making sure that everyone had a couple crackers, after urinating and before leaving. The promotion could have tied Red Cross into it and had "an audience" giving blood, while the contestants drank the H20. The Red Cross Medics could have monitored the contestants and provided the "nutrients" to ensure the electrolytes remained in balance.
I will state again that HEALTHY people actually DIEING from water intoxication is extremely RARE, doesn't happen enough to matter, really (I don't mean to trivialize the life that was lost but what I mean is it's not like an epidemic where millions die each year from it). All the other contestants rebounded fine. And they were probably not in danger of dieing either, because they were otherwise HEALTHY. There is something we are not being told by the Strange Family about Jennifer's condition that would put her over the edge. As I have stated in other posts, there could be medication or health problem involved, etc etc. Anyway I stand by my belief that it is incumbant upon the contestant to know what their health situation is, and to not participate in ENDURANCE CONTESTS if they have a less than A Grade on the report card, and to not rely on a DJ or any radio Station Staff to tell them if they are fit. I will ALWAYS refer to my OWN DOCTOR to tell me if I am fit for anything, not a DJ or Radio Station Staff, or even a paramedic standing by...because the paramedic can only base his/her decision to allow you to participate based on information YOU provide. If YOU lie...you could DIE.
Re: Interesting Question
You have changed the parameters to support your agenda. It doesn't work like that. Why is it so hard for you to just consider that a person might be responsible for their own actions? I cannot understand this.
Yes. Because you've broken the law. There's no law against voluntarily drinking water until you die. And BTW...If this is such a statistically possible outcome. Or uniformly hazardous behavior....Where's the FDA warning label on water?
I want to draw your attention to a very important section of this that you keep ignoring.
"this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes." .
That means that there are other factors that must contribute to the increased risk of fatality.
Also, you might want to read this part as well:
"The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms"
That means...if a person ignores the body's natural tendencies to regulate the system, it will contribute to the increased risk of fatality.
Incorrect. You might want to re-read it. It's not about the fluid intake. It's about electrolyte balance. Looking at that paragraph only places more responsibility upon the individual. Most people have been able to question the woman's decision making. Not saying it is wrong. But, that she should be responsible for herself. Especially given the ignoring of multiple warnings, and her repeatedly proclamations of readiness, and willingness to proceed.
Agreed. This won't make it to court. As I said before. It's not up to the company when it gets to the point of civil liability. The insurance company steps in and decides whether or not to fight the case. They'll most likely write the check.
SirRoxalot said:
You have changed the parameters to support your agenda. It doesn't work like that. Why is it so hard for you to just consider that a person might be responsible for their own actions? I cannot understand this.
SirRoxalot said:
Yes. Because you've broken the law. There's no law against voluntarily drinking water until you die. And BTW...If this is such a statistically possible outcome. Or uniformly hazardous behavior....Where's the FDA warning label on water?
SirRoxalot said:
I want to draw your attention to a very important section of this that you keep ignoring.
"this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes." .
That means that there are other factors that must contribute to the increased risk of fatality.
Also, you might want to read this part as well:
"The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms"
That means...if a person ignores the body's natural tendencies to regulate the system, it will contribute to the increased risk of fatality.
SirRoxalot said:
Incorrect. You might want to re-read it. It's not about the fluid intake. It's about electrolyte balance. Looking at that paragraph only places more responsibility upon the individual. Most people have been able to question the woman's decision making. Not saying it is wrong. But, that she should be responsible for herself. Especially given the ignoring of multiple warnings, and her repeatedly proclamations of readiness, and willingness to proceed.
SirRoxalot said:
Agreed. This won't make it to court. As I said before. It's not up to the company when it gets to the point of civil liability. The insurance company steps in and decides whether or not to fight the case. They'll most likely write the check.
Twisting All Night Long
I have made a serious error in judgement. I ASSUMED that people would both READ and UNDERSTAND the articles that I so thoughtfully posted links to.
Let me try to enhance your reading comprehension:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.[2] Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet. However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication. The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
Let's break it down:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.
Your body can safely process about a quart of liquid an hour.
Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet.
People on a low sodium diet can DIE if they drink as little as .48 gallons - less than 2 quarts - of water in a single sitting.
People on a NORMAL DIET (i.e. what most people normally eat - don't let the word DIET throw you off) can DIE by CONSUMING AS LITTLE AS... 3 LITRES (.79 GALLONS - a little over three quarts) OF WATER IN A SINGLE SITTING.
However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication.
A person who is PERSPIRING HEAVILY is LOSING WATER VIA OTHER ROUTES. The fact that they're eliminating water is actually RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR WATER INTOXICATION - i.e. THE PERSON CAN DRINK MORE IF THEY'RE SWEATING. But...
The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
ELECTROLYTES are lost through URINE or SWEAT - adding to the DILUTION of the remain electrolytes in the system.
Oh, by the way, did you fail to READ and/or UNDERSTAND the FIRST PARAGRAPH?
Body fluids contain electrolytes (particularly sodium compounds, such as sodium chloride) in concentrations that must be held within very narrow limits. Water enters the body orally or intravenously and leaves the body primarily in urine, sweat, and exhaled water vapor. If water enters the body more quickly than it can be removed, body fluids are diluted and a potentially dangerous shift in electrolyte balance occurs.
It's the DILUTION of electrolytes that upsets the balance, and LOSING electrolytes may make it worse.
Now, you would think that somebody at Entercom Sacremento, KNOWING that WATER INTOXICATION CAN BE FATAL, might have done some research into simple topics like:
"How much water do you have to drink for it to be dangerous?"
"Does the body mass of the contestants matter?"
"Should we worry about the state of their health in qualifying entrants?"
and so on... Isn't that worth a call to a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL? Is FAILING to call a medical professional, KNOWING that WATER INTOXICATION CAN BE FATAL, an example of NEGLIGENCE? Is the level of negligence CRIMINAL?
DOES THE CONTESTANT BEAR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Yes, but ONLY if the radio station provided correct information regarding the contest. Did the radio station advise contestants that "You may be drinking over two gallons of water during this contest" and "Water intoxication can kill you." Even a statement like "We don't know how much water it will take to kill you because we didn't research it" would have been more helpful than "You'll puke before you can drink enough water to be dangerous".
As far as the number of reported water intoxication deaths from simply drinking too much water are concerned, they're relatively rare EXCEPT among mental patients who drink excessive amounts of water to dilute their meds, people trying to beat a drug test by diluting their urine, and people taking Ecstacy and some hallucinogenic drugs who are convinced that they're thirsty in spite of drinking gallons of water.
As far as changing the parameters of the "driving example", that was an illustration that ONE MISTAKE does bring SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, especially if there's negligence and someone DIES. Substitute DRUNK with SPEEDING, DRIVING ON BALD TIRES, FAILING TO FIX MY BRAKES, DRIVING RECKLESSLY, or any other NEGLIGENT behavior.
The bottom line on this is that SOMEONE at Entercom SHOULD HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH. You seem willing to let the idiot disk jockeys off the hook. I'm not. I'm also not willing to let the promotions people, any sales people involved, or especially the MANAGEMENT (PD, OD, GM) off the hook. I'm afraid that this got by because of a conversation that went like this:
"We've done it lots. Nobody got hurt. You're body's 98% water. Drinking too much water can't hurt you, right."
"What about that kid in Chino that died of water intoxication?"
"Oh, that's because they made him exercise. We're not gonna make these guys exercise."
Instead of "Well, are you sure it's the exercise part? Maybe you'd better check it out", it was "OK. You're the expert. Make sure that they sign a release."
A young wife and mother is DEAD. It's NOT HER FAULT, but it sure isn't an ACCIDENT. It's NEGLIGENCE.
Is it TRAGIC? Yes. Whether it's criminal or not remains to be seen.
I have made a serious error in judgement. I ASSUMED that people would both READ and UNDERSTAND the articles that I so thoughtfully posted links to.
Let me try to enhance your reading comprehension:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.[2] Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet. However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication. The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
Let's break it down:
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.
Your body can safely process about a quart of liquid an hour.
Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet.
People on a low sodium diet can DIE if they drink as little as .48 gallons - less than 2 quarts - of water in a single sitting.
People on a NORMAL DIET (i.e. what most people normally eat - don't let the word DIET throw you off) can DIE by CONSUMING AS LITTLE AS... 3 LITRES (.79 GALLONS - a little over three quarts) OF WATER IN A SINGLE SITTING.
However, this must be modulated by potential water losses via other routes. For example, a person who is perspiring heavily may lose 1 L/hr (0.26 gal) of water through perspiration alone, thereby raising the threshold for water intoxication.
A person who is PERSPIRING HEAVILY is LOSING WATER VIA OTHER ROUTES. The fact that they're eliminating water is actually RAISING THE THRESHOLD FOR WATER INTOXICATION - i.e. THE PERSON CAN DRINK MORE IF THEY'RE SWEATING. But...
The problem is further complicated by the amount of electrolytes lost in urine or sweat, which is variable within a range controlled by the body's regulatory mechanisms.
ELECTROLYTES are lost through URINE or SWEAT - adding to the DILUTION of the remain electrolytes in the system.
Oh, by the way, did you fail to READ and/or UNDERSTAND the FIRST PARAGRAPH?
Body fluids contain electrolytes (particularly sodium compounds, such as sodium chloride) in concentrations that must be held within very narrow limits. Water enters the body orally or intravenously and leaves the body primarily in urine, sweat, and exhaled water vapor. If water enters the body more quickly than it can be removed, body fluids are diluted and a potentially dangerous shift in electrolyte balance occurs.
It's the DILUTION of electrolytes that upsets the balance, and LOSING electrolytes may make it worse.
Now, you would think that somebody at Entercom Sacremento, KNOWING that WATER INTOXICATION CAN BE FATAL, might have done some research into simple topics like:
"How much water do you have to drink for it to be dangerous?"
"Does the body mass of the contestants matter?"
"Should we worry about the state of their health in qualifying entrants?"
and so on... Isn't that worth a call to a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL? Is FAILING to call a medical professional, KNOWING that WATER INTOXICATION CAN BE FATAL, an example of NEGLIGENCE? Is the level of negligence CRIMINAL?
DOES THE CONTESTANT BEAR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Yes, but ONLY if the radio station provided correct information regarding the contest. Did the radio station advise contestants that "You may be drinking over two gallons of water during this contest" and "Water intoxication can kill you." Even a statement like "We don't know how much water it will take to kill you because we didn't research it" would have been more helpful than "You'll puke before you can drink enough water to be dangerous".
As far as the number of reported water intoxication deaths from simply drinking too much water are concerned, they're relatively rare EXCEPT among mental patients who drink excessive amounts of water to dilute their meds, people trying to beat a drug test by diluting their urine, and people taking Ecstacy and some hallucinogenic drugs who are convinced that they're thirsty in spite of drinking gallons of water.
As far as changing the parameters of the "driving example", that was an illustration that ONE MISTAKE does bring SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES, especially if there's negligence and someone DIES. Substitute DRUNK with SPEEDING, DRIVING ON BALD TIRES, FAILING TO FIX MY BRAKES, DRIVING RECKLESSLY, or any other NEGLIGENT behavior.
The bottom line on this is that SOMEONE at Entercom SHOULD HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH. You seem willing to let the idiot disk jockeys off the hook. I'm not. I'm also not willing to let the promotions people, any sales people involved, or especially the MANAGEMENT (PD, OD, GM) off the hook. I'm afraid that this got by because of a conversation that went like this:
"We've done it lots. Nobody got hurt. You're body's 98% water. Drinking too much water can't hurt you, right."
"What about that kid in Chino that died of water intoxication?"
"Oh, that's because they made him exercise. We're not gonna make these guys exercise."
Instead of "Well, are you sure it's the exercise part? Maybe you'd better check it out", it was "OK. You're the expert. Make sure that they sign a release."
A young wife and mother is DEAD. It's NOT HER FAULT, but it sure isn't an ACCIDENT. It's NEGLIGENCE.
Is it TRAGIC? Yes. Whether it's criminal or not remains to be seen.
I hate to be cold. But here it is.
She drank the water.
She was responsible for her own actions. They were not forced upon her.
Providing someone an environment in which to do themself harm is not a crime. It is the responsibility of the individual to decide whether or not to exist in that environment.
She died due to her decision to voluntarily drink the water.
She was responsible to know what possible effect, or if anything she ingests could be dangerous.
She had the responsibility to obtain all available data before voluntarily participating in the contest. It's her body. And had just as much, if not more availability to this information due to her career in the medical field.
She had the opportunity to opt out multiple times.
She chose not to. And in fact bragged about her ability, and readiness to continue, and engage in an additional display of her ability to ingest more water than the other person.
She left the building of her own accord, and by her own diagnosis healthy.
Nobody knows what activity she engaged in between the time she left the building, and when her body was found.
According to the Federal Govt., drinking water is safe. Otherwise there'd be a warning label.
Anything done in excess can be potentially fatal.
The radio show, by their own admission, did not do any research on the subject.
Being unprepared or uninformed does not make one responsible for the actions of another.
At some point. You must consider that a person's deliberate actions can kill them. Regardless of research, or medical supervision. You must also consider the unknown activities of the woman between the time the contest ended, and the discovery of her body.
There will be a huge payout here. But, it is doubtful that anyone could be held criminally negligent.
She drank the water.
She was responsible for her own actions. They were not forced upon her.
Providing someone an environment in which to do themself harm is not a crime. It is the responsibility of the individual to decide whether or not to exist in that environment.
She died due to her decision to voluntarily drink the water.
She was responsible to know what possible effect, or if anything she ingests could be dangerous.
She had the responsibility to obtain all available data before voluntarily participating in the contest. It's her body. And had just as much, if not more availability to this information due to her career in the medical field.
She had the opportunity to opt out multiple times.
She chose not to. And in fact bragged about her ability, and readiness to continue, and engage in an additional display of her ability to ingest more water than the other person.
She left the building of her own accord, and by her own diagnosis healthy.
Nobody knows what activity she engaged in between the time she left the building, and when her body was found.
According to the Federal Govt., drinking water is safe. Otherwise there'd be a warning label.
Anything done in excess can be potentially fatal.
The radio show, by their own admission, did not do any research on the subject.
Being unprepared or uninformed does not make one responsible for the actions of another.
At some point. You must consider that a person's deliberate actions can kill them. Regardless of research, or medical supervision. You must also consider the unknown activities of the woman between the time the contest ended, and the discovery of her body.
There will be a huge payout here. But, it is doubtful that anyone could be held criminally negligent.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
But, true though most of your statements may be, it does NOT mean that the station did not have a duty to warn of a danger they knew or should have known.
The station needed to have the same information about this contest and its possible effects as the contestant. This was all available information and the danger of injury was at the very least, presumably foreseeable.
But let's not forget that all of her actions were in response to the station's contest. The station originated the scheme--not her. The station owed a duty to ALL of its contestants to warn them of the dangers of drinking this much water in such a short time.
Remember, her own fault does not excuse any fault of the station, hosts, or management. It is merely considered and reduces a recovery.
The station needed to have the same information about this contest and its possible effects as the contestant. This was all available information and the danger of injury was at the very least, presumably foreseeable.
But let's not forget that all of her actions were in response to the station's contest. The station originated the scheme--not her. The station owed a duty to ALL of its contestants to warn them of the dangers of drinking this much water in such a short time.
Remember, her own fault does not excuse any fault of the station, hosts, or management. It is merely considered and reduces a recovery.
Johnny Morgan said:
I don't disagree that the availability of information was not present.
But..so many people have cited an alleged "nurse" who called in, and during said call, provided incorrect information to the hosts and contestants that reinforced false assumptions of how the body would react.
There are so many angles one can take when dissecting this event. And I guess the question remains "who is responsible for the actions of an individual?"
We're going to find out.
J
Johnny Morgan
Guest
But it's not that simple: it's also, who is responsible for the actions of the radio station and its hosts.
It's BOTH questions, and as they conduct discovery, more information will come out.
Charlie Profit said:
I'm sorry.... but all of the blood drives and battered women's homes donations, will not get Entercom out of this one. No amount of "Community Service" will suffice. I think, to "send a message" to conglomerate owners, that they should receive the "death penalty" on this one... meaning that I think that the revocation of the license should happen. THAT, will certainly send a message that every conglomerate will take very seriously !
"Serve the Public Interest..."
C
cabradio
Guest
TheRover said:
Police Officers also serve in the "Public Interest". Every now and then there is an ACCIDENT and an innocent person gets killed by a Police Officer. I guess that makes the Police Department bad, the Policeman bad, and they should all be fired and sued and drug through the wringer each time an ACCIDENT happens...nice logic.
[/quote]
Police Officers also serve in the "Public Interest". Every now and then there is an ACCIDENT and an innocent person gets killed by a Police Officer. I guess that makes the Police Department bad, the Policeman bad, and they should all be fired and sued and drug through the wringer each time an ACCIDENT happens...nice logic.
[/quote]
Well, there is an incident review, the responsible parties are placed on administrative lead, often unpaid, and they go through an Internal Affairs investigation, which is FAR worse than anyone in the general public will ever imagine.
A woman died as a result of participating in a radio contest.
The station failed to research what could happen.
This isn't a rare condition to develop. Especially if you don't urinate.
The bottom line is, if she took a "wii", she would have presumably been ok. If the end would have made the competition like one of the sit-in/stand-on/hand-on, with a restroom break after a determined period of time, this contest could have become a well-run opportunity for multiple rounds.
Which is probably the way the contest would have been run, granted medical advice had been provided.
Entercom is responsible... It's like the cartoon schtick of a character tied to a log by their enemy, and pointed towards a spinning saw blade... Except Ms. Strange couldn't free herself, and the station didn't turn the saw off.
Do I think they should lose their license? Quite possibly. It would make an exceptional example of consequences once you fail to serve the public interest.
Police Officers also serve in the "Public Interest". Every now and then there is an ACCIDENT and an innocent person gets killed by a Police Officer. I guess that makes the Police Department bad, the Policeman bad, and they should all be fired and sued and drug through the wringer each time an ACCIDENT happens...nice logic.
[/quote]
Well, there is an incident review, the responsible parties are placed on administrative lead, often unpaid, and they go through an Internal Affairs investigation, which is FAR worse than anyone in the general public will ever imagine.
A woman died as a result of participating in a radio contest.
The station failed to research what could happen.
This isn't a rare condition to develop. Especially if you don't urinate.
The bottom line is, if she took a "wii", she would have presumably been ok. If the end would have made the competition like one of the sit-in/stand-on/hand-on, with a restroom break after a determined period of time, this contest could have become a well-run opportunity for multiple rounds.
Which is probably the way the contest would have been run, granted medical advice had been provided.
Entercom is responsible... It's like the cartoon schtick of a character tied to a log by their enemy, and pointed towards a spinning saw blade... Except Ms. Strange couldn't free herself, and the station didn't turn the saw off.
Do I think they should lose their license? Quite possibly. It would make an exceptional example of consequences once you fail to serve the public interest.
sacriver said:
With all due respect, how can you possibly make this comparison? Nobody was holding the woman hostage. She was offered multiple opportunities to "free herself" and chose not to.
No offense. Bad analogy.
Will It Never End?
But, why should she "free herself"? The people from the radio station who were handing her more water are telling her "It's OK. We know all about water intoxication. You'll puke before it's a problem."
Tragically, they were wrong.
You want real tragedy?
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.
Water taken orally doesn't get to the bladder until it's absorbed into the bloodstream through the intestines, and filtered through the kidneys. Any water given to a contestant in excess of a quart an hour wouldn't get to the bladder anyway, because the kidneys can't filter more than that. The kidneys filter blood, removing impurities, regulating the volume of water in your body, maintaining the composition of blood, and producing urine to remove both impurities and excess water from the body.
Drinking more than a quart of water per hour didn't affect the contestants need to "wee". It just overwhelmed their kidneys, diluted their blood, upset the balance of electrolytes, and put the contestants in danger.
Too bad the people responsible for the contest didn't ask somebody with knowledge of human anatomy, or do a little research ahead of time.
Neanderpaul said:
But, why should she "free herself"? The people from the radio station who were handing her more water are telling her "It's OK. We know all about water intoxication. You'll puke before it's a problem."
Tragically, they were wrong.
You want real tragedy?
A person with two healthy kidneys can excrete about 900ml (0.24 gal)/hr.
Water taken orally doesn't get to the bladder until it's absorbed into the bloodstream through the intestines, and filtered through the kidneys. Any water given to a contestant in excess of a quart an hour wouldn't get to the bladder anyway, because the kidneys can't filter more than that. The kidneys filter blood, removing impurities, regulating the volume of water in your body, maintaining the composition of blood, and producing urine to remove both impurities and excess water from the body.
Drinking more than a quart of water per hour didn't affect the contestants need to "wee". It just overwhelmed their kidneys, diluted their blood, upset the balance of electrolytes, and put the contestants in danger.
Too bad the people responsible for the contest didn't ask somebody with knowledge of human anatomy, or do a little research ahead of time.
Re: Will It Never End?
Just can't grasp the concept...
The woman, and I'll try to say this slowly...v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y i-n-g-e-s-t-e-d t-h-e w-a-t-e-r o-f h-e-r o-w-n f-r-e-e w-i-l-l
An adult is responsible for their own choices. She was given the choice to play. She chose to play. Nobody held her against her will. She didn't have to free herself. She volunteered to participate. That means she wanted to play. Nobody at the station made her do anything she wasn't willing to do. This was not forced behavior!!! She made a bad decision.
Should we outlaw public water fountains? There's no medical supervision there, and people can drink all they want by choice. If they drop dead, does the city get sued?
Seriously. Why is it so hard for people to allow for human error on the part of the individual? Why aren't people held responsible for their own actions?
Why is someone else always responsible for a person's folly?
This is so frustrating to me.
SirRoxalot said:
Just can't grasp the concept...
The woman, and I'll try to say this slowly...v-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y i-n-g-e-s-t-e-d t-h-e w-a-t-e-r o-f h-e-r o-w-n f-r-e-e w-i-l-l
An adult is responsible for their own choices. She was given the choice to play. She chose to play. Nobody held her against her will. She didn't have to free herself. She volunteered to participate. That means she wanted to play. Nobody at the station made her do anything she wasn't willing to do. This was not forced behavior!!! She made a bad decision.
Should we outlaw public water fountains? There's no medical supervision there, and people can drink all they want by choice. If they drop dead, does the city get sued?
Seriously. Why is it so hard for people to allow for human error on the part of the individual? Why aren't people held responsible for their own actions?
Why is someone else always responsible for a person's folly?
This is so frustrating to me.
- Status