In "The End", Who's Responsible?

[Johnny Morgan]

Why is someone else always responsible for a person's folly?

Because in law, there can be one or more persons whose fault proximately caused an injury.

The fact that this woman volunatrily drank a gallon of water is not in dispute. No one has ever disputed that.

But, in California, that does not change the fact that someone else may also be liable for her injury (or in this case, death), regardless of the fact she voluntarily did anything. The station, management, and hosts knew or should have known the same warnings about drinking water as she did--especially since, as we have seen, they are publicly available.

Also, this woman did not voluntarily drink this water in a vacuum--it was in response to the station's own contest offer. As part of offering the contest, with these parameters, the station had a duty to alert contestants to any dangers it knew or reasonably should have known. Ingesting this much water in a short amount of time, with no relief, is a hazard of the kind which the station and its personnel should have warned. The fact that she kept going does not relieve the station--or its hosts--of the responsibility to stop the contest. If they asked her if she was OK, they knew that there was concern of some sort. It was negligent to continue to place her in harm's way knowing those dangers.

Again, this does not relieve her of any fault of her own--that will be weighed (by the jury) against the fault of the station, its management, and hosts. But fault of the plaintiff is not an end-all to recovery or a finding of liability on the part of the defendant.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Will It Never End?

Just can't grasp the concept...

Obviously, you prefer not to 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

I'll try to say this slowly... r-a-d-i-o s-t-a-t-i-o-n r-a-n a c-o-n-t-e-s-t r-e-w-a-r-d-i-n-g a c-o-n-t-e-s-t-a-n-t f-o-r a p-a-r-t-i-c-u-l-a-r b-e-h-a-v-i-o-r. They have a responsibility to make sure that the behavior isn't inherently dangerous, or to warn the contestants of the danger and have them sign a release that absolves the radio station of responsibility. BTW, even a signed release isn't likely to absolve them of ALL responsibility.

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.

She made a bad decision because radio station personnel assured her that she didn't have to worry about water intoxication. That makes THE RADIO STATION RESPONSIBLE.

BTW, YOU used the terminology "free herself". That's why I put quotes around it when I cited it.

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?

Does the city encourage and reward people for drinking unusually large amounts of water? Does the city tell people - "Go ahead, drink all you can hold. You won't die, you'll just puke." I don't think so.

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?

Seriously, why is it so hard for you to admit human error on the part of the radio station personnel? Why shouldn't people in a position of authority - i.e. conducting a contest - be held responsible for their own actions?

Why is someone else always responsible for a person's folly?

Because someone else was, in this case, was responsible for another person's "folly". "Someone else" provided a reward, the water, and assurance that this stunt wasn't dangerous, even though they knew that a condition called "water intoxication" existed and could be fatal. They did not consult competent medical authority to determine the safety of the contest, or provide competent medical authority to determine the condition of contestants before, during, and after the contest. That's called negligence at best, and "depraved indifference" at worst.

This is so frustrating to me.

Because you're so wrong, and you don't want to admit it.

 

[Neanderpaul]

I see something in your post that will probably be the foundation upon which any judgement will be rendered.

the station had a duty to alert contestants to any dangers it knew or reasonably should have known.

If you can find one, just one case, or even a citation of the reasonable possibility that this could've happened to an otherwise normal, healthy adult, who hasn't engaged in physical exertion, forced ingestion, or conscious ignorance of the body's natural regulatory system to keep electrolyte and sodium levels balanced, prior to this event, I'll side with you.

But, several people have searched for this information to no avail. Now, although water intoxication information is all over the place because this woman's unfortunate death has changed medical history. This is still the first publicly known case of its kind. Prior to this, there is no way the hosts could have "reasonably known." That this would happen. According to all available information at the time, it's never happened before.

All cited instances took place with altered control settings. There's nothing out there. In all of the medical studies done. And you'd think that with the sudden proclamations by all of the newly interested medical "experts" of the inherent danger of this behavior, there'd be at least one citation wouldn't you? Or perhaps, a Govt. warning label on water bottles.

Hell..the U.S. Govt. tells us that water is a life giver. That as long as we have water, we're OK. Nobody has ever told us otherwise. I was an athlete from Pop Warner Football, all the way through college. I participated in some of the most strenuous, physically taxing sports there are (Football, Wrestling, Boxing). Not once in the 20 plus years of participating in any of these sports, was it ever tabled that drinking too much water could kill you. Not once. That's Pop Warner, ECAC, AAU, NCAA. None of those athletic organizations ever discussed it with any of us. And you'd think we were slightly more at risk than this woman was. Again, I'm not bragging about personal accomplishments. I'm trying to illustrate that the statistical liklihood of this scenario was beyond unthinkable to the normal person. And that the available medical data clearly states how unlikely this is to happen to an otherwise normal, healthy adult.

I'm not saying they weren't ignorant. By their own admission they were. But, they couldn't have forseen this as a likely end-case scenario. It was so statistically minute a chance, that in all the years contests like this have been done, it's never happened before.

Ever.

And now, I sincerely hope it never happens again. There're no excuses left.

We'll see if the "reasonably should have known" tactic will really hold weight.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: Will It Never End?

I'll try to say this slowly... r-a-d-i-o s-t-a-t-i-o-n r-a-n a c-o-n-t-e-s-t r-e-w-a-r-d-i-n-g a c-o-n-t-e-s-t-a-n-t f-o-r a p-a-r-t-i-c-u-l-a-r b-e-h-a-v-i-o-r. They have a responsibility to make sure that the behavior isn't inherently dangerous, or to warn the contestants of the danger and have them sign a release that absolves the radio station of responsibility. BTW, even a signed release isn't likely to absolve them of ALL responsibility.

And you as an individual have a responsibility to know your own limits, and have the choice to participate.

She made a bad decision because radio station personnel assured her that she didn't have to worry about water intoxication. That makes THE RADIO STATION RESPONSIBLE.

And some people assured me that the San Diego Chargers were going to win the Superbowl. They never assured her she'd be OK. The topic was discussed. They told her she'd probably be OK. They were right. This has never happened before. In all probability, she should have been OK. They're not responsbile. She was given the opportunity to opt out if she felt uncomfortable in any way. And she chose not to.
.

Does the city encourage and reward people for drinking unusually large amounts of water? Does the city tell people - "Go ahead, drink all you can hold. You won't die, you'll just puke." I don't think so.

Did your friends ever encourage you to bridge jump? Or ski a double diamond? Did you? Why, or why not?

I have admitted that in my opinion, the station did not do any research. And that they did not have a medical person there. But, I will not fault them for the voluntary behavior of their listener. Just creating an environment in which someone may do themself physical harm by their own choice to exist in that environment. I also contend that an EMT would've only asked the woman if she felt OK, and released her. They have to allow an individual to assess their own well-being.

Why is someone else always responsible for a person's folly?

Because someone else was, in this case, was responsible for another person's "folly". "Someone else" provided a reward, the water, and assurance that this stunt wasn't dangerous, even though they knew that a condition called "water intoxication" existed and could be fatal. They did not consult competent medical authority to determine the safety of the contest, or provide competent medical authority to determine the condition of contestants before, during, and after the contest. That's called negligence at best, and "depraved indifference" at worst.

They provided a reward. They provided an environment. They also did state that someone could die. The woman was there for several hours and could be argued that she reasonably knew what was being discussed. She bragged about her consumption. She exhibited a clear willingness to participate, continue even though her head hurt, and challenged the hosts to let her participate in an additional contest.

This is so frustrating to me.

Because you're so wrong, and you don't want to admit it.

I disagree. And that's my right. I don't look down upon you for your belief. I'd ask the same respect be shown.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Prior to this, there is no way the hosts could have "reasonably known." That this would happen.

They talked about this very act--water poisoning--being bad or at least unhealthy on the same day this contest was held. Whether that was accurate or not, they had information before the start of the contest that would cause a reasonable person to warn of a danger. Did they do so?

Also, did the hosts and the station reasonably inquire into the health of the contestants (not just her, but all of them)?

These are all questions at trial.

I don't have to find any citations to authority for this--it's not my case, it's not my argument, it's not my position. I am just explaining why simply saying "she did it voluntarily" does not end the inquiry. It's not as simple in law as saying "she did it herself, she's responsible". That used to be the law (generally)--but not anymore. Her fault is weighed against the alleged fault of others.

You don't have to know to a medical certainty that something could happen--these hosts are not doctors, nor is station management (to my knowledge). But they possessed information that ingesting this much water, in such a short time, was unhealthy or possibly deadly. Did they relay this information to all the contestants, and this one in particular? That's the question.

We don't know the answer to that...yet.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The End?

You have every right to believe as you do. That doesn't make you right. I think that there has been ample proof that information that was easily obtainable should have tipped off someone at Entercom that this contest could be dangerous. The on-air reference to the death in Chino is the most damning statement offered that somebody should have consulted a medical authority before running this contest.

Once again, I expect that a jury will decide this case at some point. Whether it's a Grand Jury deciding whether the behavior was criminal or not, or a civil jury deciding on liability, I'm comfortable that my point of view will prevail.

Just for fun:

How many of believe "It's the contestant's fault"?

How many of you believe "It's the radio station's fault"?


BTW, this will never get to a civil jury. Entercom is smarter than that. They have way too much to lose in punitive damages, bad publicity, and complications with the FCC if they lose.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

You know how I feel about things SirRoxaLot. I believe in the broadcasting credo of operating in the public interest, and this event plainly displays that the station did not.

 

[shooty]

Sir Roxalot,
Can you add, Were both responsible? I'll vote for that!

 

[SirRoxalot]

The End of the Beginning

Sir Roxalot,
Can you add, Were both responsible? I'll vote for that!

How about:

1) "It's mostly the contestant's fault."

2) "It's mostly the radio station's fault."

3) "It's nobody's fault, just a terrible accident."



BTW, if it's at all the radio station's fault, it will cost Entercom money.

 

[cabradio]

Re: The End of the Beginning

Sir Roxalot,
Can you add, Were both responsible? I'll vote for that!

How about:

1) "It's mostly the contestant's fault."

2) "It's mostly the radio station's fault."

3) "It's nobody's fault, just a terrible accident."



BTW, if it's at all the radio station's fault, it will cost Entercom money.

I think most people here will find culpability for both parties.

The station should have had a health care professional on site.
Mrs. Strange should have known when to stop, or should not have participated if she knew she was not 100 percent healthy.

Death by water intoxication from a healthy person, under normal circumstances is soooooo rare that Mrs. Strange is the FIRST known account. So there is no precedence that the station staff could have compared to.

What causes the intoxication is the LOSS of the fluids, without replentishing the nutrients, NOT the intake of the fluids. If she left the station without "emptying her bladder" there, that could also come into play. Because the symtems would only NORMALLY appear AFTER the LOSS of the fluids. And the station cannot be held responsible for what she did AFTER she left. THAT HAS to come into play, as does her health BEFORE the contest....any meds, any known or unknown illnesses, etc.

We'll see how this plays out....

I think both party's have a part in this tragic accident. I would say the Mrs. Strange bears most of the responsibility to herself. But Entercom should be held liable for not having a health care professional on site to evaluate the contestants.

 

[Radio-X]

On a slightly different tangent...

What are the chances of KDND losing their license? I know stations have had theirs yanked (ex: WMJX Miami in the early 80's) for fibbing about contests, but having somebody kick the bucket? Damn...

Entercom's is traveling up a steep hill...

P.S.: I have to ask...why did it take someone to die to realize these contests make no sense. A man in the Apple Valley spent two weeks in the hospital last year for participating in a similar contest for a pool table

Radio-X

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: The End of the Beginning

I think most people here will find culpability for both parties.

I think you're probably looking at a huge civil payout. But, no criminal finding. And kids growing up without a mother. A husband without his wife. 10, and maybe more radio professionals who will have to live with this guilt for the rest of their lives. Lots of therapy bills.

...all for a videogame.

Therein lies tragedy. A human life given. Dozens more ruined. And our profession forever altered.

 

[Johnny Morgan]

Death by water intoxication from a healthy person, under normal circumstances is soooooo rare that Mrs. Strange is the FIRST known account. So there is no precedence that the station staff could have compared to.

But, the station did not have to warn of death--only of possible harm that could come from this act. And, by the way, I have found in just a simple Google search, two medical journals that say that death is possible from water intoxication. That's all that's necessary--to tell and warn the contestants that death is possible, as is serious injury (which no one here questions).

What causes the intoxication is the LOSS of the fluids, without replentishing the nutrients, NOT the intake of the fluids. If she left the station without "emptying her bladder" there, that could also come into play. Because the symtems would only NORMALLY appear AFTER the LOSS of the fluids. And the station cannot be held responsible for what she did AFTER she left. THAT HAS to come into play, as does her health BEFORE the contest....any meds, any known or unknown illnesses, etc.

That bolded statement isn't true. If the injury--as you say, the release of fluids--is proximately related to the intake of the water during the station's contest (which, no doubt it is--but for the water intake during the contest, she wouldn't have that much water to release), liability attaches to the cause of the injury. The cause of the injury is the intake of fluids; release of those fluids was a natural consquence which flows (please excuse the pun, but it really is the legal term) from that cause. The injury is her serious harm and eventual death. And the breach of duty is the station not telling her that there was harm involved here, even though they knew or reasonably should have known.

That is plaintiffs' negligence case in a nutshell. Almost a law school textbook (or exam) case of negligence.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Correction?

What causes the intoxication is the LOSS of the fluids, without replentishing the nutrients, NOT the intake of the fluids. If she left the station without "emptying her bladder" there, that could also come into play. Because the symtems would only NORMALLY appear AFTER the LOSS of the fluids. And the station cannot be held responsible for what she did AFTER she left. THAT HAS to come into play, as does her health BEFORE the contest....any meds, any known or unknown illnesses, etc.

Please quote your source on this. EVERYTHING that I've found on "water intoxication" indicates that the condition is caused by the lack of sodium and other electrolytes in the blood through dilution, either by consuming more water than can be eliminated through the kidneys, or by replacing sodium and electrolytes that have been removed from the bloodstream through excessive sweating with plain water - diluting the blood and once again, lowering the amount of sodium and electrolytes.

Your contention that it's the LOSS of fluids that causes water intoxication is flat out wrong according to every source I've seen.

As far as symptoms are concerned:

Since the brain is the organ most susceptible to overhydration, a change in behavior is usually the first symptom of water intoxication. The patient may become confused, drowsy, or inattentive. Shouting and delirium are common. Other symptoms of overhydration may include blurred vision, muscle cramps and twitching, paralysis on one side of the body, poor coordination, nausea and vomiting, rapid breathing, sudden weight gain, and weakness. The patient's complexion is normal or flushed. Blood pressure is sometimes higher than normal, but elevations may not be noticed even when the degree of water intoxication is serious.

Mrs. Strange should have known when to stop, or should not have participated if she knew she was not 100 percent healthy.

Who says that she wasn't 100% healthy? Please cite a reference. Secondly, since "confused, drowsy, or inattentive" behavior is a symptom of water intoxication, that could be reason she didn't stop.

Death by water intoxication from a healthy person, under normal circumstances is soooooo rare that Mrs. Strange is the FIRST known account. So there is no precedence that the station staff could have compared to.

First of all, these were NOT normal circumstances. She was given more than two gallons of water to drink, and advised that it "wouldn't kill her." "Is anybody dieing in here?" The people running the contest laughed it off.

Secondly, they knew that there was a condition called water intoxication. Easily obtainable information - a Google search - indicates that it could be life-threatening, and that it is not that rare, although this may be one of the first times that anybody was stupid enough to run a contest like this outside of a fraternity hazing.

Check this out...

And this...

And this...

And this...

And this...

And this...

Do you really want me to go on? Isn't there enough information here for somebody there to say "Gee, maybe we should call a medical professional to see if this could be a problem?"

Conclusions drawn from invalid premises are themselves invalid. I learned that in Logic 101.

But, you are right on one count:

The station should have had a health care professional on site.

 

[cabradio]

Re: Correction?

What causes the intoxication is the LOSS of the fluids, without replentishing the nutrients, NOT the intake of the fluids. If she left the station without "emptying her bladder" there, that could also come into play. Because the symtems would only NORMALLY appear AFTER the LOSS of the fluids. And the station cannot be held responsible for what she did AFTER she left. THAT HAS to come into play, as does her health BEFORE the contest....any meds, any known or unknown illnesses, etc.

Please quote your source on this. EVERYTHING that I've found on "water intoxication" indicates that the condition is caused by the lack of sodium and other electrolytes in the blood through dilution, either by consuming more water than can be eliminated through the kidneys, or by replacing sodium and electrolytes that have been removed from the bloodstream through excessive sweating with plain water - diluting the blood and once again, lowering the amount of sodium and electrolytes.

YOU provided "quoted info" without links the other day that gave some indication that it is the "loss" of the fluid without proper replenishment of nutrients, not just the intake of fluid. And I responded to you using your examples. Guess you missed it. Read it HERE. You should also read past the first line of each of these sites you quote because you seem to take things out of context to suit your point of view. You need to read ALL the info, not just up to the point that seems to agree with what you are saying....kind of like how you ADDED a word to one of MY posts that completely changed the example. Very unprofessional....

I will be having experts on my show next week....I'll provide you links to a podcast.

 

[cabradio]

Contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

The BBC reported on Jan. 14 (using Associated Press as reference) at least one contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

Contestant James Ybarra told Associated Press news agency: "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."


Read it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6261509.stm

As did News Channel 10:

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=23350

 

[SirRoxalot]

Specific Density

YOU provided "quoted info" without links the other day that gave some indication that it is the "loss" of the fluid without proper replenishment of nutrients, not just the intake of fluid. And I responded to you using your examples. Guess you missed it. Read it HERE.

I'm sorry, but could you copy the specific information that you based that interpretation on? I can't find it in the post your cited.

BTW, Charlie, did you miss the post just below it that showed that YOUR interpretation of the article posted was WRONG? Here's the section of YOUR post that I ASSUME you're referring to, since you hardly made it clear:

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.[/i]

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.

In my next post, I explained to you that the article - and several of the articles quoted - explained that it's the sodium and electrolyte level in the blood that DROPS because the blood is diluted by excess water.

If you are capable of READING and UNDERSTANDING the articles cited, you'd find that your contention that electrolytes weren't lost until the person urinated is INCORRECT. Sodium and electrolytes are lost when the lower intestine absorbs water consumed by mouth, and the kidneys are flooded with more water than they can handle. The electrolytes IN THE BLOOD are DILUTED, causing WATER INTOXICATION.

You should also read past the first line of each of these sites you quote because you seem to take things out of context to suit your point of view. You need to read ALL the info, not just up to the point that seems to agree with what you are saying....kind of like how you ADDED a word to one of MY posts that completely changed the example. Very unprofessional....

First of all, I DO read and UNDERSTAND the information on the links I provide. You have provide NO REFERENCES to support your point of view, and have MISINTERPRETED the information from the links I've posted. Very unprofessional.

BTW, I ADDED a word to one of your posts and HIGHLIGHTED IT IN RED in order to demonstrate how your "example" failed to include NEGLIGENCE on the part of the "offending party". It's not like I tried to slip something by.

I will be having experts on my show next week....I'll provide you links to a podcast.

Perhaps THEY'LL be able to explain it to you in terms that YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Re: Contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

The BBC reported on Jan. 14 (using Associated Press as reference) at least one contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

Contestant James Ybarra told Associated Press news agency: "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."


Read it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6261509.stm

As did News Channel 10:

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=23350

Thus, Entercom admitted that there was an element of risk in the contest. Did they explain the risk to contestants? Did they advise them that one of the risks was DEATH?

Is that the best quote you can find to support your case, Charlie? What about all the rest of the quotes from the recordings, like:

Female: Can't you get water poisoning and like, die?
Male: Your body is like 98% water. Why can't you take in as much water as you want?
Multiple voices: How about that poor kid... I know... That's what I was thinking... Yeah, well he was doing other things...
Female: Maybe we should have researched this...
Male: Yeah. We never do this before I start doing something. Next thing you know, I break out in hives, I'm in an ambulance...
Male:If it gets dangerous for somebody, their body will automatically throw it up, and if you throw up the water, you're out of the contest.

And:

Caller: ...Those people who are drinking all that water can get sick and can possibly die from water intoxication.
Male: Yeah, we're aware of that...
Male: They signed releases so we're not responsible so it's OK.
Male: And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, they're going to throw up and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right...

Male (to one concerned caller): How come you didn't enter the contest?
Caller: Because we don't want to DIE.


Too bad that the contestants couldn't hear the audio from those two concerned callers, and too bad that the people running the contest DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

There's more, where they talk about Mrs. Strange "not doing too well", and "this is what it feels like when your drowning... there's a whole lot of water inside of you"

That LAST statement was about the only thing they got right about water intoxication all morning.

They should have followed their instincts when the female said: "Maybe we should have researched this..."

 

[cabradio]

Re: Contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

The BBC reported on Jan. 14 (using Associated Press as reference) at least one contestant was told "don't put your health at risk."

Contestant James Ybarra told Associated Press news agency: "They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk."


Read it here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6261509.stm

As did News Channel 10:

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=23350

Thus, Entercom admitted that there was an element of risk in the contest. Did they explain the risk to contestants? Did they advise them that one of the risks was DEATH?

There's an element of risk in EVERYTHING. Before THIS tragic accident, there was NO EVIDENCE of a HEALTHY person dieing from drinking too much water (and we still don't know Mrs Strange's health condition prior to entering the contest). You cannot refute that. Must the radio station give a warning that contestant's could have a heart attack from the excitement of winning a contest? After all, it IS POSSIBLE. It probably EASIER to find a story of someone dieing from that kind of excitement than to find a story of someone dieing from drinking too much water. And to this day, there is still only ONE example of a person dieing from drinking too much water, without any extenuating circumstances, and that is of Mrs. Strange.

Is that the best quote you can find to support your case, Charlie? What about all the rest of the quotes from the recordings, like:

Female: Can't you get water poisoning and like, die?
Male: Your body is like 98% water. Why can't you take in as much water as you want?
Multiple voices: How about that poor kid... I know... That's what I was thinking... Yeah, well he was doing other things...
Female: Maybe we should have researched this...
Male: Yeah. We never do this before I start doing something. Next thing you know, I break out in hives, I'm in an ambulance...
Male:If it gets dangerous for somebody, their body will automatically throw it up, and if you throw up the water, you're out of the contest.

And:

Caller: ...Those people who are drinking all that water can get sick and can possibly die from water intoxication.
Male: Yeah, we're aware of that...
Male: They signed releases so we're not responsible so it's OK.
Male: And if they get to the point where they have to throw up, they're going to throw up and they're out of the contest before they die, so that's good, right...

Male (to one concerned caller): How come you didn't enter the contest?
Caller: Because we don't want to DIE.

I would be concerned if this were an exchange with terrorists. These guys had no malicious intent, they were trying to be funny and entertaining. It was a "morning show" on a rock station...this type of conversation is what gets the ratings for them. Was it reckless? We can see NOW that it was reckless, AT THE TIME most people were laughing along. Again, I'll state that if Mrs. Strange had NOT died, no one would be going over the aircheck and reprimanding license revocation for running a "deadly" contest. NO ONE.

Too bad that the contestants couldn't hear the audio from those two concerned callers, and too bad that the people running the contest DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.

I doubt it would have made a difference. According to paperwork submitted by the Strange Family attorney, Mrs Strange worked for a Medical Office, and held a position of responsibility. So, if she wasn't concerned that she looked pregnant again, I doubt hearing callers saying they could die would have made any difference. She was determined to win, irregardless of the fact that she was experiencing discomfort.

There's more, where they talk about Mrs. Strange "not doing too well", and "this is what it feels like when your drowning... there's a whole lot of water inside of you"

Again, this wasn't said with malicious intent. If a terrorist was saying it, then yes, I can see the deliberate attempt to injure, but this again was an attempt to be funny. I agree that is was reckless, but they weren't TRYING to endanger anyone. And they didn't believe anyone to be in danger of DIEING, because there was no evidence to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that someone WOULD die. After all, the winner drank more, and did not die. And there were 20 other contestants that drank ALOT and did not die.

That LAST statement was about the only thing they got right about water intoxication all morning.

They should have followed their instincts when the female said: "Maybe we should have researched this..."

Again, a statement most likely made to attempt to be funny in light of the contest, to get listeners riled up.

The point here is the extreme to which some of you want to hold these guys accountable. With the information available AT THAT TIME, they had NO WAY of concluding that what THEY were doing could even remotely end with a tragic death. When you search Water Intoxication now, there are thousands of people blogging about it. All with the same crap being repeated about how Entercom should face license revocation.

I'll restate my position that Entercom was irresponsible for not having a medic or some health care professional on site, and should be held accountable for that much of the situation. I've said it since my first post on this subject. I just happen to believe that the listener had a responsibility to herself and to her children to know her own limits. It's a tragic accident, but to blame the station for her own poor judgment to continue, in my opinion is irresponsible because it shows that people do not need to care for themselves, nor be held responsible for any of their actions.

 

[cabradio]

Re: Specific Density

This is going to get messy, but I'll attempt a response.

YOU provided "quoted info" without links the other day that gave some indication that it is the "loss" of the fluid without proper replenishment of nutrients, not just the intake of fluid. And I responded to you using your examples. Guess you missed it. Read it HERE.

I'm sorry, but could you copy the specific information that you based that interpretation on? I can't find it in the post your cited.

BTW, Charlie, did you miss the post just below it that showed that YOUR interpretation of the article posted was WRONG? Here's the section of YOUR post that I ASSUME you're referring to, since you hardly made it clear:

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.[/i]

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.

Yes this is the "quoted text" you provided, without a link, that I was referring to. I am going to say here, that now you should understand my point that taking things out of context without including the whole text is what makes some of these posts inaccurate. That is what I did to prove a point and now you should see the error you have been making because you are quite guilty of that yourself.

In my next post, I explained to you that the article - and several of the articles quoted - explained that it's the sodium and electrolyte level in the blood that DROPS because the blood is diluted by excess water.

If you are capable of READING and UNDERSTANDING the articles cited, you'd find that your contention that electrolytes weren't lost until the person urinated is INCORRECT. Sodium and electrolytes are lost when the lower intestine absorbs water consumed by mouth, and the kidneys are flooded with more water than they can handle. The electrolytes IN THE BLOOD are DILUTED, causing WATER INTOXICATION.

I am actually one of the first to provide references BEYOND the Wikipedia links you keep giving. And so, I am fully aware of what causes water intoxication. Again, I was making point, to see how you would react to me taking something out of context, because quite frankly I'm tired of you changing the context to suit your own argument.

You should also read past the first line of each of these sites you quote because you seem to take things out of context to suit your point of view. You need to read ALL the info, not just up to the point that seems to agree with what you are saying....kind of like how you ADDED a word to one of MY posts that completely changed the example. Very unprofessional....

First of all, I DO read and UNDERSTAND the information on the links I provide. You have provide NO REFERENCES to support your point of view, and have MISINTERPRETED the information from the links I've posted. Very unprofessional.

Look SirRoxalot, you posted "quoted text" without links to read the "whole text". That is what I was using to make a point to you that you can't just take something out of context to suit you. Don't say I am unprofessional when I am using YOUR unvalidated information to respond back to you. In my VERY FIRST post on this subject I provided links to TWO sites that you later linked to yourself. I also provided other links in a couple posts I have made, you are just not reading them thoroughly.

BTW, I ADDED a word to one of your posts and HIGHLIGHTED IT IN RED in order to demonstrate how your "example" failed to include NEGLIGENCE on the part of the "offending party". It's not like I tried to slip something by.

You changed my example to suit your position. You did not argue my point, and you made it look to others that I was saying "drunk drivers" don't get punished. Answer MY questions, don't take my example and twist it to make it look like I'm an idiot.

My point is that this contest resulted in an unforeseeable consequence. Death is a possibility for just about ANYTHING. At what point do we finally agree that the person needs to be accountable for their OWN ACTIONS. If you were to get in your car and fail to look while turning and you hit and kill someone "by accident", does that make you a bad person? Answer MY question, don't add that the person is "drunk" like you did in my last example.

I will be having experts on my show next week....I'll provide you links to a podcast.

Perhaps THEY'LL be able to explain it to you in terms that YOU CAN UNDERSTAND.

Again, if you have read ANYTHING I have posted, you would know that I do understand what causes water intoxication. I was one of the first to explain it in these postings. What I did in that last post was take things out of context, simply doing what you have done, to make my own point. What you will learn is that it is such an extremely rare occurance that Mrs. Strange is the FIRST person on record to have died by drinking too much water without having taken drugs, or having some other circumstance contribute to the danger.