[Eureka]

Hope her kids enjoy that Wii.

[samIamsad]

Hold Your Wee for a Wii.

...

Just goes to show that indeed the dose makes the poison. Well, that and a couple of other things I need to get my head around first. Quite possibly.

[Hammerite]

it's kind of weird when you think that this would never have happened if the Wii had kept its original name.

[MoriartyL]

Darwinism at work.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Darwinism at work.

I don't think that's fair. Her motivation was to get something for her kids. Also reading the story, I listen to that radio station occasionally. I remember hearing about that contest but hadn't followed it.

It's remarkably sad.

[Eureka]

But come on. Who by now doesn't know that too much water can kill you? I don't know who is dumber, the mom for actually doing it, or the radio station for putting it on.

Probably the station.

[lumi]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Darwinism at work.

I'm so tired of people saying this. It's an attempt to seem better than others, it's inconsiderate, and it often doesn't have anything to do with the situation.

[undeaf]

All I've heard is that too much water can flush out the salts in your body and kill you due to that, but I would have thought that that would require urinating a few times, since the figure I heard was 13 litres. But I would assume that this could also do some nasty kidney damage.

Seems like the media is willing to do anything it thinks it can get away with.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by undeaf

All I've heard is that too much water can flush out the salts in your body and kill you due to that, but I would have thought that that would require urinating a few times, since the figure I heard was 13 litres. But I would assume that this could also do some nasty kidney damage.

Actually, the main reason why drinking too much water is dangerous is osmotic pressure. Drinking an awful lot of water without urinating makes the salt concentrations in your bodily fluids decrease (because you've got the same quantity of salt diluted in more water); but your cells (especially brain cells which are particularly sensitive to that sort of thing) want to maintain constant the salt concentration difference between their internal medium and the external fluid, so they let water in, in an effort to compensate and decrease their internal salt concentration, and so the pressure inside your brain cells rises, they eventually pop, and, bravo, you've just killed yourself.

(What am I doing posting in Chit-chat? Eep. *rushes away*)

[SSH]

Originally Posted by undeaf

All I've heard is that too much water can flush out the salts in your body and kill you due to that, but I would have thought that that would require urinating a few times, since the figure I heard was 13 litres. But I would assume that this could also do some nasty kidney damage.

It's all down to that nasty chemical Dihydrogen Monoxide...

[Mark]

I'm over fifty years old and I've never heard of anyone dying from drinking too much water. Color me enlightened.

Envision me horrified.

"Health, health, darling!" ~ Edina Monsoon

[jacog]

Apparently people on low sodium diets can die from drinking as little as 1.8 litres of water. The wikipedia page on water intoxication already has a link to this very story...

So then I have to wonder why the station did not consult a doctor about possible health risks. This is the US we are talking about where people sue for anything, so one would think they'd keep their asses covered.

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by Hammerite

it's kind of weird when you think that this would never have happened if the Wii had kept its original name.

follow that a bit further when thinking of the scenario... revolutions tend to be quite bloody...

[Jatsie]

...or simply a rotation of 360 degrees.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Spider Crusoe

I'm so tired of people saying this. It's an attempt to seem better than others, it's inconsiderate, and it often doesn't have anything to do with the situation.

I'm not assigning any value judgments here- I'm sure she was a perfectly good person. What I am saying is only that this is typical "survival of the fittest"- a person did something dangerous without any concern for the outcome, and suffered the consequences. Darwinism doesn't say that some living things are better than others, it just says that some living things are more likely to survive than others. So by invoking Darwinism, I'm not saying that I approve of this senseless death- only that I understand it.

[stepurhan]

But you could argue it's not Darwinism because

1. As Mark and a few others have mentioned, it's not universally known that this could be fatal. Ill-advised but not fatal.
2. As jacoq said, didn't the radio station consult a doctor? Or to put it another way, is it not reasonable for the women to believe they had and therefore the risk was not severe?

As for Spider Crusoe's value judgements comment I think this stems from the Darwin Awards (which internet based types on these forums are likely to know).

I think few people would deny they read the Darwin Awards because they enjoy feeling superior to the idiots that appear in them. With that background citing "Darwinism" comes across as a value judgement because you appear to be relating this woman back to the awards and hence extreme stupidity.

[Toefur]

And she's obviously had kids already, so them genes are gonna infect the rest of the human race...!

[Crunchy in milk]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

But you could argue it's not Darwinism because

1. It's not universally known that this could be fatal. Ill-advised but not fatal.
2. Didn't the radio station consult a doctor? Or to put it another way, is it not reasonable for the women to believe they had and therefore the risk was not severe?

Why should she have felt the weight of responsibility lay with the contest organisers? because we are approaching such a sheltered society that its now second nature to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility?

This is an extremely uncommon death. Traditionally such contests are performed with alcohol which is a diuretic, they probabyly thought using water was safer. Not many doctors would advise agaisnt such a contest, this was just a freak accident. I don't think the woman qualifies for the darwin awards for that.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

Why should she have felt the weight of responsibility lay with the contest organisers? because we are approaching such a sheltered society that its now second nature to absolve ourselves of personal responsibility?

This is an extremely uncommon death. Traditionally such contests are performed with alcohol which is a diuretic, they probabyly thought using water was safer. Not many doctors would advise agaisnt such a contest, this was just a freak accident. I don't think the woman qualifies for the darwin awards for that.

I agree that we should take responsibility for our own actions. My point about the presumption of the station having consulted a doctor related to the particular scenario.

As you say, a contest performed with alcohol would have been a lot more obviously risky. The fact that water intoxication is so much more uncommon (and hence, less well-known) means the contestants would not necessarily be fully aware of the risks they were taking

On the flipside the radio station attempting to absolve itself of responsibility by stating contestants shouldn't take part if they think their health is at risk is a bit tacky. How about them taking some responsibility for the situation they created?

Regardless, your last comment makes me think we basically agree. The women hadn't done anything to qualify for a Darwin.

[bulldog]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

How about them taking some responsibility for the situation they created?

I agree the station should take some of the responsibility. But then again the women should have known better. If I where in her shoes I think I would have gotten a second job or taken up something like a hobby that I could make money at to buy the console.