Slashdot Mirror


Woman Killed In Wii-Related Competition

snuffin writes to tell us that a local radio competition to "hold your wee for a Wii" has ended with a Sacramento woman dead from water poisoning. From the article: "An Associated Press interview with another contestant, named James Ybarra, claimed that contestants were initially given eight ounce bottles of water to drink every fifteen minutes, with larger bottles being used once contestants began to drop out. According to Ybarra, 'They told us if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk.' He described the victim as 'a nice lady' and that 'she was telling me about her family and her three kids and how she was doing it for her kids.'"

784 comments

  1. Mmm... by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What a stupid world.

    --
    Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    1. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      So did she win?

    2. Re:Mmm... by sentientbeing · · Score: 4, Funny

      For those that couldnt hold their water there was a runner-up prize -

      'Hold a turd, you might come third!'

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    3. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, but got pissed instead.

    4. Re:Mmm... by x2A · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah I nearly pissed myself laughing when I heard about it yesterday, but the irony was too much to handle, and I passed out.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:Mmm... by x2A · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      crap joke maybe (I thought it was amusing), but offtopic?!!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    6. Re:Mmm... by MeanderingMind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The past week has seen a rash of harsh moderation. Anything that doesn't wholely, completely, and directly deal with the topic at hand is Off-Topic. Any reaction or joke 20 others might have had or told is Redundant, regardless of whether or not it has already been said. Anything that might provoke dialogue is Flamebait. Everything else is a Troll.

      I initially had attributed this to random chance, some inexperienced moderators being overly liberal in their application of -1s. However, as this has persisted across the board for some time now I am at a loss as to its cause.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    7. Re:Mmm... by Divebus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who'd a' thunk that? That's the damnedest thing! Note to self: 8 glasses of water a day is an upper limit.

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    8. Re:Mmm... by asCii88 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you trying to be funny? Because that is not funny at all.

    9. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      1) The gist of your post was already covered in the tags.
      2) It added nothing to the discussion.
      3) It had no merit on it's own.
      4) Ditto for the parent comment.

    10. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the amount of water needs to drink a day is directly related to body weight. Average is 8 cups of water though

    11. Re:Mmm... by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      1) There were obviously no tags at the time of the first post.
      2) It added little to the discussion. There's a discrepancy.
      3) It had little merit on its own. Again, discrepancy.
      4) What does that have to do with anything?

      I've certainly had more incisive things to contribute to discussions before than one-liner Propagandhi lyrics, but I consider a -1 score for my post to be, beyond reasonable doubt, haywire moderation.

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
    12. Re:Mmm... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! It says she did it for her children! Will somebody please, for just this once, think of the children?!?

      --
      blah blah blah
    13. Re:Mmm... by welshsocialist · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I read, no. The winner was Lucy Davidson. She felt the same symptoms the victim felt. See here.

      --
      Support the Chagossians
    14. Re:Mmm... by ftsf · · Score: 1

      this just goes to show you what happens when you think of the children!

    15. Re:Mmm... by dr_dank · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it looks like her family won themselves a radio station...

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    16. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drink eight pints of beer and a pot of coffee a day. I feel fine.

    17. Re:Mmm... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Only if her husband is a good lawyer. Otherwise, a law firm just won a radio station. The family will get some fraction of the proceeds.

    18. Re:Mmm... by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

      8 glasses of water with nothing else is a bad idea.

      I'm not a doctor, but my understanding is as long as you are getting some electrolytes you'll be fine. If they did the contest with a sports drink (ie All-Sport), nobody would of died.

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    19. Re:Mmm... by thealsir · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, I was reading about water poisoning when doing some medical research a few weeks ago. It was a condition that I didn't even know existed (yeah, I knew you could faint if your body didn't have enough electrolytes, but death?)

      Then, a few weeks later, this happens.

      --
      Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
    20. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Funny thing is, I was reading about water poisoning when doing some medical research a few weeks ago.
      > It was a condition that I didn't even know existed (yeah, I knew you could faint if your body didn't have
      > enough electrolytes, but death?)

      Yep. It's evidently common enough knowledge that prisoners in maximum security have been known to commit suicide by drinking a lot of water in the shower.

    21. Re:Mmm... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, the amount of water needs to drink a day is directly related to body weight. Average is 8 cups of water though

      Exactly, most /.ers could drink much more water than this an be absolutely safe.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    22. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel so much better for eating all those high-sodium frozen lunches at work. I usually drink quite a bit of water - a gallon a day at least (healthier than coke, right?), and somehow I always craved those lunches. Now I know: my craving might be saving my life. Hoo-ray. I'll tell that to the doctor next time high cholesterol shows up in my checkup :) Cheers, Kuba

    23. Re:Mmm... by pipatron · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Did she wiin?" would have been funnier though.

      --
      c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
    24. Re:Mmm... by sndoc · · Score: 1

      They Shoot Horses, Don't They

    25. Re:Mmm... by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      What a stupid world.
      Do these people ever do a bit of research, as a matter of due diligence, the dangers of excessive water intake are well known.
      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    26. Re:Mmm... by Spetiam · · Score: 1

      no, but her estate will win a huge fscking settlement. "if you don't feel like you can do this, don't put your health at risk" is the most pathetic disclaimer i think i've ever seen.

    27. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    28. Re:Mmm... by n3m6 · · Score: 1

      this is not funny.

    29. Re:Mmm... by s31523 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Probably! The radio station really biffed this one, they should have used cups of coffee. Caffeine blocks the hormone Anti Diuretic Hormone, which causes your Kidneys to go into overdrive. A lot less water would have been imbibed and after 3 or 4 cups of coffee someone would have to go bad. Speaking of... gotta go.

    30. Re:Mmm... by Slaughter'em · · Score: 0

      Come on sure it is . . . crackin' jokes about it is even funnier.

    31. Re:Mmm... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I actually know a person who had a seizure and could have died as a result of electrolyte depletion. I wasn't there when it happened, but a good mutual friend was (And was the one who called the ambulance.) I used to work for Roaring Camp and Big Trees Railroad in Felton, CA. I walked up the hill behind the narrow gauge (OT note: "gauge" is not in the firefox dictionary, but "gauger" is. WTF?) steam train to make sure that it didn't start fires as it has an open firebox. I used to take salt tablets and you could FEEL the difference...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re:Mmm... by atrizzah · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're sick, as is anyone who modded you funny. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the general public is aware of the dangers of water intoxication--as was the radio station who put on the contest, obviously. And now a mother of three is dead. Well, at least you're amused

    33. Re:Mmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you'd have had someone having a heart attack instead.

      probably as they tripped over a small puppy as their trousers fell down just as a vicar walks in. More tea vicar!

    34. Re:Mmm... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Until they're 40 and have their first heart attack because their obese, 12-cups-of-water-a-day bodies have caught up to them.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    35. Re:Mmm... by strider2k · · Score: 1

      Yes. Jennifer Strange was a runner up and received Justin Timberlake tickets.

      --
      Every geek has some sort of website, programming or computer project. Here's mine: www.youtasteit.com . What's yours?
  2. Killed?? by celardore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A woman wasn't killed, she died as a result of self induced water intoxication. It's a difference that means a lot. The headline makes it sound like a sport killing of some kind. Would have been more appropriate to say "Woman dies In Wii-Related Competition".

    1. Re:Killed?? by Alchemar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I suggest you look up the word killed. It is not a synonym for murder. She was killed. When you commit sucide you "kill yourself" not "die yourself." She was killed by her own stupidity, water posioning, participating in a stunt. If she had been killed by another person, ie if the people hosting the show would not let her go to the bathroom, then it would have been murder.

    2. Re:Killed?? by GiovanniZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This title is completely ridiculous. It's sensationalist and makes it look like someone died using the Wii. The womans death has nothing to do with a Wii, it could have been a competition for anything.

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    3. Re:Killed?? by starwed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known.

    4. Re:Killed?? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      She was killed by her own stupidity

      If we're picking words, then I'd say she was killed by her ignorance, not stupidity.

      If she knew that excess water consumption can kill you, then yes, she was stupid and the station doesn't have a liability.

      But did she know that? Did the station inform her? Did the station know? When she started to feel sick, is it reasonable to expect her to go to the emergency room just for drinking water? And even if she had, was it already too late at that point?

      I just have questions, not answers, but I also reserve judgment until the details are known.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    5. Re:Killed?? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sick of the PC thought police trying to blame all these deaths on water. Water doesn't kill people, radio DJs do.

    6. Re:Killed?? by BSAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, ignorance is no defence. Stressing your body always incurs a serious risk.

    7. Re:Killed?? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      To die is a passive verb, but to kill requires a subject, someone or something that carries out the action.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    8. Re:Killed?? by toddbu · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I'd never heard of this before a few weeks ago.

      --
      If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
    9. Re:Killed?? by s20451 · · Score: 5, Funny

      However, ignorance is no defence. Stressing your body always incurs a serious risk.

      Right, so the hell with exercise.

      --
      Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
    10. Re:Killed?? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      You're trying to make the headline seem less severe! I'm sure you're one of those dihydrogen monoxide lobbyists! We all know DHO kills people!

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Killed?? by theGil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. The darwinaward tag made me frown...not everyone knew it could be fatal.

    12. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It certainly does have something to do with the Wii. Were there not a Wii, there would have been no contest and this do death. More to the point, if the Nintendo Corporation had arranged manufacturing of the Wii to meet demand there likely would have been no contest, as a Wii would be easy to purchase at any electronics store.

      If the Nintendo Corporation purposely limited supply to artifically create the appearance of scarcity to drive up demand I would bet they hold a large share of the liability for this death.

      In this era of splintered liability the tie that binds a corporation to a given cirmstance may be little more than their having offered a product involved in the circumstance to the market.

    13. Re:Killed?? by reub2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the name of the console inspired the competition. And why do you expect the media to pass up on a chance to make a story as sensational as they can?

    14. Re:Killed?? by celardore · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known. It is a condition that is known by users of the ecstasy community though, especially after Leah Betts, a case that happened in the UK some years back. I've known several people in this lifestyle and they were always conscious of the amount of water they were drinking - even when high as a kite. Not too much, but not too little either.

      The knowledge is out there, just whether you've heard it or not.
    15. Re:Killed?? by caluml · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known.

      It is in the UK.

    16. Re:Killed?? by kermit1221 · · Score: 1

      Heaven forbid the media using a headline that grabs your attention...

    17. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Knowledge is not a prerequisite for a Darwin award, though lack thereof often is.

    18. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "water poisoning isn't that well known."

      In the UK, we call it "killed by ecstasy"

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

    19. Re:Killed?? by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Remember Jim Fixx?

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    20. Re:Killed?? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I emailed the editor on this one. I wish I'd been watching the Firehose; I'd have voted it down.

    21. Re:Killed?? by codered82 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm surprised (on some level) that a soldier listening to the station didn't call to say it was a bad idea. Having been stationed at Fort Sill during the summer months we were reminded of this lesson each day. We were under strict control about our water intake during category-5 heat. Nonetheless, this is a sad situation that was completely preventable.

      --
      History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
    22. Re:Killed?? by danpsmith · · Score: 0, Troll
      I suggest you look up the word killed. It is not a synonym for murder. She was killed. When you commit sucide you "kill yourself" not "die yourself."

      You'll have to forgive him, our parent seems to be a member of the dreaded word police. His post is brought to you by the same group of assholes that thinks "if you change the name of the condition you change the condition."

      We're not handicapped, we're hand-i-capable!

      Either way a mother is dead over a plastic gadget and a stupid radio contest.

      See George Carlin for more occurrences of this phenomenon.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    23. Re:Killed?? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      Either way it's really sad. People have been getting too wrapped up in "the latest thing" for way too long now.

      We were partially responsible for this, as well as the PS3 robberies and shootings. The reason she was killed was because she wanted to win so badly. The reason she wanted this so badly was the exciting "must get it" atmosphere surrounding the product. The reason that atmosphere exists is because people like us started the fire and fueled it.

      I know you're probably bristlling. Why shouldn't we be free to talk about something we like? I'm not suggesting you should stop. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it either.

      TW

    24. Re:Killed?? by AxemRed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree. Most people don't realize that you can die from drinking too much water at once. I was telling my friend about this story, and his response was: "Water? How much did she drink? I have drank 20 beers in a night and not died, and all she drank was water!"

      I had to explain to him about alcohol being a diuretic and about excessive water upsetting the electrolyte balance in your blood. Anyway, the point is, I wouldn't say that she is stupid for not knowing this. People aren't generally taught about this problem because it's very unlikely to happen. The only reason that I knew about this was from another similar news story about 8 years ago.

    25. Re:Killed?? by GiovanniZero · · Score: 1, Troll

      Please, you can still find Wii's. The lady sounds like she did it because, surprise surpise, it was free! Everyone likes to win stuff. There would have been a similar result if they offered an xbox 360 or anything else. Further more, Nintendo doesn't have anything to gain by making the Wii scarce. This isn't Debeers and Nintendo doesn't get any more money per unit because people are having a hard time finding it. The truth is that the Wii has been more successful than Nintendo imagined. If you cater to the lowest common denominator you're only going to lower the standard. I'm not talking about the down trodden, I'm talking about behavior. If you treat people like idiots then they will be idiots. It's silly to expect businesses to look for such far reaching effects. It costs too much. Besides do you think Nintendo should have had a think tank saying "ok, what if the Wii is widely succesfull and then its hard to get that a radio station has a competition to give one away. Then, what if that competition is to drink water without urninating. Imagine, what if one person drinks so much water that they actually overdose and die of the stuff. I don't think we should release the Wii because that risk is way too high!"

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    26. Re:Killed?? by nasch · · Score: 1
      To die is a passive verb, but to kill requires a subject, someone or something that carries out the action.
      In this case, water intoxication. I agree that "died" would have been a better choice, but "killed" wasn't incorrect.
    27. Re:Killed?? by Phiu-x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The reason that atmosphere exists is because people like us started the fire and fueled it." No , the reason she died is because she drank way too much water. The rest is sensationalism. WTF with people not being responsible for their own action ?

      --
      This is a stolen sig.
    28. Re:Killed?? by value_added · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity ...

      Fercryinoutloud, she was drinking dihydrogen monoxide!!!

      Dunno about you, but everyone knows that's dangerous stuff. Been in an airport recently? The terrorists are now using it.

      More info here!

    29. Re:Killed?? by roscivs · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm surprised (on some level) that a soldier listening to the station didn't call to say it was a bad idea.

      Actually, some reports are saying that a nurse called in and warned that drinking too much water is dangerous. See http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16466174.htm for example.

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

      For that reason, I think the studio should be held liable.
      --
      ~ roscivs
    30. Re:Killed?? by celardore · · Score: 1

      This title is completely ridiculous. It's sensationalist and makes it look like someone died using the Wii. The womans death has nothing to do with a Wii, it could have been a competition for anything.
      It's been amusing watching my post get modded up, down, up, down, up, down. So many mod points, what a waste.... Can't wait for my comment moderation report - I bet it will be lengthy!

    31. Re:Killed?? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Can we all just agree that she was wiitarded to the fact that too much of anything isn't good for you ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    32. Re:Killed?? by fmobus · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ.

      While I agree that the "Wii" name may have prompted this stupid contest, I strongly disagree that Nintendo is at fault for allegedly purposely limiting the supply (can you provide some reference on this?). I can't RTFA now (it's slashdotted), but I guess the contest winner would get a Nintendo Wii for free, so there's no place for scarcity. People just wanted the opportunity of getting a Wii for free (as opposed to paying some hundred dollars).

      IMO, Nintendo's "artificial scarcity" would be at fault if someone died in a queue to buy a Wii.

      On a side note: considering it happened on United Suers of America, how long before Nintendo gets sued for not keeping the original console codename ("revolution") and prompting this contest?

    33. Re:Killed?? by Mursk · · Score: 1

      Woosh!

      --
      "This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
    34. Re:Killed?? by metamatic · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is Slashdot, people are more likely to remember Douglas Adams.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    35. Re:Killed?? by vought · · Score: 1

      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known.


      The last water poisoning case of any notoriety occurrred about a hundred miles from where this woman was killed, in Chico, California. Members of a fraternity on campus there were making pledges drink water and hold their bladders in a similar way. At some point, a pledge passed out and died from 'water poisoning'.

      The Chico water poisoning death was a big news item at the time and dominated the Sacramento (it's the closest major city to Redding; many CSU Chico students are from Sacramento and a large number of alumni live there) news cycle. It's worth betting that at least some of the people involved in the contest and the organizers had heard of exactly this hazard.

    36. Re:Killed?? by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1
      "The reason that atmosphere exists is because people like us started the fire and fueled it." No , the reason she died is because she drank way too much water.

      Why can't both be true? If you fall or jump off a cliff you have to have access to a cliff. That doesn't make it the cliff's fault, but have you noticed we don't put schools at the tops of cliffs without adding railings and/or fences?

      This wouldn't have happened without the curren't atmosphere. That doesn't mean the atmosphere should be blamed or villified, but it also doesn't mean that nothing could be done. Is there no equivilent to railings? Is there absolutely no way we could make the situation better?

      TW
    37. Re:Killed?? by alta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with all your statements. Add to this the fact that most people don't get ENOUGH water, and are told to drink MORE water, this just makes it worse. As a whole, I think the population is problably more dehydrated than over hydrated. Look at how much coke, tea and coffee the we (U.S.) drink, compared to just plain water.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    38. Re:Killed?? by Jonny0stars · · Score: 1

      Thats what Nintendo WANT you to think...

    39. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, you can still find Wii's.

      This does not mean that they are not scarce. If you happen to be in a store that sells them, at the moment they arrive, you can get one. Almost everywhere in the US they sell out very quickly.

      There would have been a similar result if they offered an xbox 360 or anything else.

      Are you prepared to offer evidence to support that claim?

      Further more, Nintendo doesn't have anything to gain by making the Wii scarce.

      Artificial scarcity is a long proven technique for driving future sales.

      The truth is that the Wii has been more successful than Nintendo imagined.

      As proven by the fact that they are difficult to find in stores. Everyone wants one, so you should buy one at your first opportunity so you will not be left behind.

      It's silly to expect businesses to look for such far reaching effects.

      I don't expect them to, but I expect that they should own up to their part in whatever transpires as a result of their actions. Asbestos manufacturers didn't know what their product would do to the human lung but they most certainly bear some liability. Check with nearly any chemical company in business in the 70s, or any drug company in business today.

    40. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then there is this guy:

      http://www.ultramarathonman.com/flash/

    41. Re:Killed?? by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The title is accurate.

      Just because it is accurate does not mean it is not sensationalist.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    42. Re:Killed?? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      This is very interesting. I did hear of certain dangers of too much water during marathons. But I wonder how it is normally possible to drink too much. Be it water. be it beer or whatever liquid, after a certain volume i doubt I could take more without some 'help'.

    43. Re:Killed?? by bahwi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because someone will do that same silly contest for a can of pringles as they would for a wii.

    44. Re:Killed?? by JustinKSU · · Score: 0

      The headline also implies that Wii had something to do with it. I thought someone had a Wii tournament, and somehow died. Really the fact that they prize to the competition was a Wii seems irrelevant to me. The headline has a bit too much sensationalism in it IMHO.

    45. Re:Killed?? by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, and every poor sap that gets hit by a beer truck chasing his poodle across the road is also an "alcohol related traffic accident". (Unless the truck is empty at the time.)

      The headline is misleading not in that it is inaccurate, but in that it lets someone draw the wrong conclusion about what it is saying. Excusable only if there is no other way to say the same thing without the unintended implication.

      "Killed in Wii-related competition" sounds like she was next to some fat geek swinging the controller around and he hit her breaking her neck. "Wii-related" is only really means "during it's normal intended use".

      The headline is more suitable for Fark, not here.

    46. Re:Killed?? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus, it's rather inaccurate. By definition, a Darwin Award is given to someone by "helping to ensure their genes do not get passed on." This woman had three kids. Her genes are already out there. So, technically, she's already passed them on... you know, before SHE passed on.

      Geeze... it sucks for her kids. To have their mother die, because of an idiotic stunt in order to make a urine joke. God, I'd hate to see their therapy bills when they get older.

    47. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they 'at fault' either, but that has no bearing on whether a court would order the Nintendo Corporation to pay money to the deceased's family.

      Consider the following:
      A police officer is called to the scene of an attempted burglary. While searching for the suspect he is carrying a shotgun. He locates the suspect, aims the shotgun at him, and orders him to surrender, which the suspect does. At some point in the process the officer pulls the trigger of the shotgun. The suspect is struck in the side of the head and immediately dies.

      Who bears liability for this?

      One would think the officer certainly. Possibly the police department if their policies do not include provision to prevent such things from happening.

      How about the corporation that made the shotgun? As it turns out, yes, they have some liability in this. Although their shotgun did as it was designed to do, fire when the trigger is pulled, a jury decided that had the weapon been designed with a trigger that required significantly more force to pull the officer may not have fired, striking the suspect in the head, killing him. The presence of a safety to prevent accidental trigger pullings mitigated the liability somewhat, and the Remington Arms Corporation was found to have contributed to 30% of the death and thus paid 30% of the jury award to the suspect's family.

    48. Re:Killed?? by theGil · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Knowledge is not a prerequisite for a Darwin award, though lack thereof often is.
      I disagree. The author of darwinawards.com lays out "Excelennce", or an "Astounding misapplication of judgement" as a prerequisite. Look at the other comments on this page. Many people didn't think drinking large quantities of water could kill you...just not something everyone thinks of.
    49. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a nurse called into the radio station and warned the station of the dangers of drinking so much water and the disc jockey dismissed the warning. SO yes it was quite stupid.

      "During the contest, a nurse called in to the station warn of the dangers of drinking too much water quickly. Her worries were dismissed by the disc jockey, The Bee reported."

      http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_9225-Water-Drinkin g-Contest-Winner-Shocked-By-US-Death-Of-Rival.html

    50. Re:Killed?? by ocbwilg · · Score: 4, Informative

      But did she know that? Did the station inform her? Did the station know? When she started to feel sick, is it reasonable to expect her to go to the emergency room just for drinking water? And even if she had, was it already too late at that point?

      According to this related article, a nurse called in to the radio station and told them that drinking water like that could be dangerous, and was rebuffed by the DJs. Regardless of whether that was true, it's pretty clear that someone is going to get the shit sued out of them.

    51. Re:Killed?? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. Nintendo should NOT be held liable in any way, shape, or form. If the death of this woman was DIRECTLY related to the use of a Wii (for example, the Wii-mote exploded because of direct contact with something) that'd be one thing. However, the reason for her death was only related to a competition. This competition's ONLY connection to Nintendo was that Nintendo sold these people a system, which they then offered as a prize in a publicity stunt.

      If I offer you a new Honda Civic car if you'll run across a busy highway naked, and you get hit by a truck and killed, should HONDA be held responsible because they made their product "too desirable?" Fuck no. The only people who should be held accountable should be me for being an asshole, and you for being an idiot that listened to an asshole.

      What about competitions that offer money as a reward? Should the U.S. mint be held accountable for people getting hurt while trying to earn money?

      All I'm saying is, people want things. Always. They offered something for free, and someone died because of it. There is no harm in playing a Wii system. In that regard, Nintendo has done their job. There certainly IS, however, a danger in playing Russian Roulette for one. So, Nintendo has nothing to do with this. Only the woman and the radio station. So until a Wii itself hurts someone, and not what people would do for one (and those damn Klondike bars. *MY* great grandmother died because someone shot her for one...) Nintendo's clean.

    52. Re:Killed?? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Technically correct and accurate are not the same thing.

    53. Re:Killed?? by Eccles · · Score: 4, Informative

      Jim Fixx died at age 52. In comparison, his father had a heart attack at 35 and died of another heart attack at age 42. It may be that Fixx's running added a decade to his life, as he still died of a heart attack triggered by extreme cholesterol blockages of his arteries.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    54. Re:Killed?? by Chapps · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a difference between exercising in moderation and exercising in excess. The same goes for this situation.

    55. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the more reason this should have been a competition where you grope yourself for a long time.

    56. Re:Killed?? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      People hype things. It's human nature, and we've been doing it for so long. "Martin's Snake Oil Potion! It will cure any and every disease from the warts on your toe to the measles in your children!"

      "...In other news today, a woman was killed while playing chicken with a runaway bull to win a bottle of Martin's Snake Oil Potion..."

      And let's not forget good old religion. Religion is the KING of marketing, and they do it well. (Not an insult on religion, but it's true. People have killed and died for their religious beliefs. This contest was for something worth $250 American.)

      The ONLY thing I can say about this situation is... shit happens, and sometimes, it happens to you. You can talk about "what should have they done?" all day, but the fact remains, they didn't. It happened. And it's over. The world is a pretty nasty place, and there's no end to horrible, humiliating, and downright awful things that can happen to you. But we can't go around covering the world in styrofoam, wearing helmets and kneepads everywhere with our own personal rescue squad. The most we can do is educate people into not doing these things a second time.

    57. Re:Killed?? by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I was watching the Firehose, and I voted it down, but it's better than another version of the headline I saw: "Wii claims first life" (or similar). I wouldn't at all be surprised if the submission of this "story" was encouraged on a Sony forum somewhere.

    58. Re:Killed?? by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Try manslaughter.

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

      Sorry but you can't go "oopsie - we didn't know throwing contestants into water from a bridge was lethal *giggle*". Handcuffs and lethal injection time!

    59. Re:Killed?? by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      For anyone who thinks only a moron could die this particular way:

      Tycho Brahe

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    60. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The actual problem isn't with drinking a lot of water, it's about a lack of electrolytes. During heavy physical activity, when you are constantly sweating out the water you take in, it's very easy to drink a lot of water over the course of a day, and if you don't replenish the electrolytes that you also sweat out, you end up like this lady. I knew a marine who drank too much water during a day of training and suffered water poisoning, he nearly died, and is currently dealing with at least semi-permanent brain damage.

    61. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you die in an accident, you have been killed.

    62. Re:Killed?? by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      Read the Darwin Awards before spouting this nonsense.
      The Darwin Awards allow for people who have already passed on their genes, as they are 1. no longer contributing and 2. their kids have learned through her demise to be less stupid. Nature overwhelmed by an extreme case of Nurture.

    63. Re:Killed?? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      exactly. would it still have been called stupidity if it was a coffee drinking contest? the radio contest was asking contestants to push physical limits that have fatal consequences when exceeded. someone at the radio station should have seen this as a potential risk and made precautions for it at the very least. personally i think the radio station was irresponsible for conducting this kind of contest, especially when you look at the type of person the victim was and her motivation.

    64. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Geeze... it sucks for her kids. To have their mother die, because of an idiotic stunt in order to make a urine joke
      ...just to get them a luxury item they'd still have to keep putting money into, will be obsolete in five years, and that the kids themselves probably badgered her for months to get them!

      God, I'd hate to see their therapy bills when they get older.
      Indeed.
    65. Re:Killed?? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      driving a massive fast moving vehicle always incurs a serious risk--so people who drive cars and die in accidents were also killed by their own stupidity.

    66. Re:Killed?? by FeTrut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only is it ridiculous to assume that she had *enough* facts, but the tone of your entire post is insulting and for lack of a better term, soulless.
      There are 3 children out there who just lost their mother due to a competition noone would have expected could end in death and you see fit to call her stupid and issue glib remarks like "Lady 3 - Darwin 0". I'm sorry, but i find that a bit disgusting.

      With regard to her supposed stupidity, the keyword is expected. It's not enough to know that you *could* die from something. I know i could die driving home today, even greater chance because the roads are snowy and icy. If someone veers out of control and hits me on the highway and i die, am i to be called stupid because i decided to drive today? I don't expect to, and neither do the hundreds of thousands of other people out driving.

      It seems a lot of people, and me included, before today assumed that drinking a lot of water results in the side effect of needing to pee really bad.

      Eating competitions are a widespread recognized sport these days, you don't see Kobayashi dying from eating 50 hot dogs, why should anyone *expect* to die from drinking a lot of water?

      The symptoms afterwards were, as far as i know, a bad headache. Well hell, i'd go home and pop and asprin, the last thing i'd be thinking is i need to be hospitalized.

      I guess i'm stupid too.

    67. Re:Killed?? by gavinpquinn · · Score: 1

      On that same note, I went here: http://grapheety.com/?story=107&zoom=12 to talk to these people waiting in line for a ps3. Someone tried to break into the store for it. Checkout the nuts in front, that should really be a crime.

    68. Re:Killed?? by slashkitty · · Score: 1

      Ok, so call it ignorance.

      Water poisoning is the #1 killer of marathoners. It's certainly well known to some people.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    69. Re:Killed?? by meadandale · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known.

      Maybe not known to you...

      It's common knowledge amongst toxicologists that "The dose makes the poison". Everything is toxic at some level, even water.

      http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dos e.html

    70. Re:Killed?? by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      do you know the specific limit of water that your body can hold? she didn't drink more water than all the other contestants so how was she to know that what others drank was going to kill her?

    71. Re:Killed?? by Intron · · Score: 4, Funny

      Very relevant to slashdot:

      "No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations."

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    72. Re:Killed?? by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For anyone who thinks only a moron could die this particular way:

      Tycho Brahe

      OK, firstly, that says that he was supposed to have died from his bladder exploding, not from water intoxication as she did. Then further to that, the wikipedia article states "Recent investigations have suggested that Tycho did not die from urinary problems but instead from mercury poisoning: toxic levels of it have been found in his hair and hair-roots."

      So, really, a poor example of someone else dying this way.
    73. Re:Killed?? by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      True, but in this case it's not sensationalist.

      The person who came up with this title used the phrase "Wii-Related" because if the competition wasn't related to the Wii, it probably has no business being on slashdot. Could the editor use better words? Probably. But it's hardly sensationalist.

    74. Re:Killed?? by hjf · · Score: 1

      Oh, where are my mod points when I need you? GP +1 Insightful, GGP -1 Troll.

    75. Re:Killed?? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Whenever you're going to do something stupid, it always sounds better to say its "for the children". Its not unlike all those attempts to ban certain types of video games; every one of them was justified as protecting children. Now we have someone doing the opposite while using the children as justification as well. Maybe I should have kids afterall; I might need them to justify some stupid stunt.

    76. Re:Killed?? by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that in Chico, the Sacto Bee reports, "One member of the fraternity eventually pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and misdemeanor hazing, two pleaded guilty to being accessories to manslaughter and hazing, and a fourth pleaded guilty to hazing."

      If only this was a KSFO promotion. That would give Spocko a brain hemorrhage.

    77. Re:Killed?? by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Geez, are you really expecting that people aren't even going to RTFS? Find something interesting to argue about so that my IQ stops dropping.

    78. Re:Killed?? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is what I totally understand. I wrote about marathon. You wrote about heavy physical activity. But what was the heavy sweating and heavy physical activity during the contest? When you strain yourself extremely with physical activities some of your 'sensors' might get a little 'confused' in extreme situations. But extreme situations like this I'd never had expected during such a stupid contest.

    79. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they be liable? In radio stations, people inside generally get to hear what goes on - on and off the air. So if said nurse did call in and her call was played on the air, odds are that the contestants heard her, too.

      Thus, if they continued to keep drinking, they did so at their own choice and risk.

      When will people stop pushing off responsibility and begin taking it for themselves. If you knew you were going to be in a snail eating contest, wouldn't you do a bit of research beforehand to make sure there were no dangers before doing it?

      As such, though it's tragic this woman died, she didn't take ANY initiative to determine for herself the risks involved.

      Sounds like a personal problem.

    80. Re:Killed?? by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      "Killed in Wii-related competition" sounds like she was next to some fat geek swinging the controller around and he hit her breaking her neck. "Wii-related" is only really means "during it's normal intended use".

      Maybe it would sound that way to someone who often draws inaccurate conclusions. Think about if she actually died from a flying Wii controller. The editor probably would have put "Woman dies from Wiimote" or something similar. I mean, yes the editor could have been more accurate and replaced the title with "Woman dies in a competition that awards a Wii to the winner". Sounds a little long for a article title doesn't it?

      The only other way the editor could have changed the title was to leave out the Wii part. Then people would at first be confused as to why the hell this would be on a slashdot, since people die doing stupid stunts like these all the time.

      So the article is accurate, on topic, and short. That's exactly what titles should be. There is nothing over the top with this.

    81. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drank too much water trying to sober up from being high once, and my head hurt pretty bad for ~2 hours afterwards. Apparently that's "cerebral edema" and I didn't even know what it was until now (this happened years ago). I don't know how much I drank, but it took less than 15 minutes because I was on my way to an appointment.

    82. Re:Killed?? by dkone · · Score: 1

      I am going way back with this reference, so unless some other old farts have some moderation points... oh well. It reminds me of the episode of WKRP (Old TV show with Lonnie Anderson) where the radio station does a promo around Thanksgiving where they give away turkeys. They do so by dropping live turkeys from a helicopter. Well the joke is that turkeys don't fly and a bunch of listeners get hurt when the turkeys land on them.

      My opinion, and I have watched laywer programs on TV (LA Law, as long as I am dating my self), is that the station is liable. They should have checked the facts BEFORE they ran the contest. I can't wait to here the spin coming from them.

      DK

    83. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it is okay to have a contest risking peoples lives?

      People should learn to think for themselves, but if you risk other peoples life for fun that's not immoral?

    84. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's better that they drink coke instead of water; at least Coke has sodium in it, to make up for electrolyte losses.

      It's not stupid that people don't know about this, because sadly we aren't taught about it at all, despite it being a constant problem in sports and also the reason for the invention of Gatorade and other sports drinks. Yet again, our pathetic public education system has let us down on something quite basic about our bodies.

      And you're right; all the stupid talk about how we supposedly need 8 glasses of water a day makes it worse. I've had people tell me I should be drinking that much water, regardless of how much food or drink I take in. That figure doesn't take into account all the water in your food, for one thing, and drinking that much pure water without electrolytes is a recipe for disaster, or at least a headache.

    85. Re:Killed?? by mconeone · · Score: 4, Informative
      To Quote the Darwin Awards Rules:

      We are not talking about common stupidities such as falling asleep with a lit cigarette, or taking a bath with a radio. The fatal act must be of such idiotic magnitude that we shake our heads and thank our lucky stars that our descendants won't have to deal with, or heaven forbid, breed with descendants of the fool that set that hare-brained scheme in motion. The initial reaction is that it does not qualify for a Darwin Award. While it is commonly a "fun fact", the average Joe does not know that one can fatally overdose on water. However, because a nurse called an specifically warned the contestants about the dangers of consuming large amounts of water, it may qualify. On the other hand, its not something incredibly moronic, like if she had put a hose down her throat to win the contest faster and died as a result.
    86. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I know i could die driving home today, even greater chance because the roads are snowy and icy.

      I think you should move someplace without all the snow and ice. Rubber tires and ice just don't go together; never have, never will. I've never understood how people ever thought it was normal to expect people to drive in such dangerous conditions far beyond the design limits of their vehicles.

      It seems a lot of people, and me included, before today assumed that drinking a lot of water results in the side effect of needing to pee really bad.

      This is exactly right. I don't know about other countries, but here in the USA, we simply aren't taught about the danger of water poisoning and electrolyte depletion. I know about this, but only because my mother's a nurse and I have a little bit of exposure to medical things that way, plus from my own interest in self-education about such topics. Very, very few people I've met even know that water poisoning exists; it's just not something we're taught in our culture or by our (crappy) public education system. Plus, since most people here don't get much exercise and eat too much, it's only usually seen with athletes.

    87. Re:Killed?? by kdemetter · · Score: 1

      true , but 'killed' will give more clicks than 'dies' .

      I actually thought that the Wii killed her . i was thinking about http://www.wiihaveaproblem.com/

    88. Re:Killed?? by alshithead · · Score: 1

      You are correct however I think most people equate "killed" with "murder" so the usage really isn't current. Also, I take issue with your statement that she was killed by her own stupidity. I think she DIED due to ignorance on her part as to the danger of H2O poisoning. :) Only us nerds and geeks know how dangerous H2O is.

      --
      I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
    89. Re:Killed?? by damiena · · Score: 1

      Yes, and every poor sap that gets hit by a beer truck chasing his poodle across the road

      Well, maybe if the beer truck was more responsible and observed the posted leash laws and kept its poodle in a harness that never would have happened.

    90. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the Darwin Awards before spouting this nonsense.

      Yes, we all know that the Darwin Awards web site is A Number One for always being correct. It does rank a bit above Faces of Death, so it must be rock solid.

    91. Re:Killed?? by Maserati · · Score: 1
      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    92. Re:Killed?? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 0

      Coke, tea and coffee are just flavored water, though. They still hydrate you.

    93. Re:Killed?? by samkass · · Score: 1

      Which is a pity, since several people a year die of it, especially in the distance running community. The "conventional wisdom" is to drink tons of water when you exercise. However, your kidneys basically shut down during intense exercise and you can easily die of water intoxication. To wit, there are no well-documented cases of distance runners dying due to dehydration, but many each year due to water intoxication.

      It sounds like the radio station should hire some good lawyers. If they'd done this competition with alcohol everyone would be up in arms. Well, drinking too much water can cause exactly the same effects on the body.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    94. Re:Killed?? by v1 · · Score: 1

      that and she doesn't even get the satisfaction (post-mortem) of a Darwin Award, (as implied in the "beta" tagging) because she is inelligible, she has children. Maybe if she had somehow managed to take them with her she might get in on a technicality.

      But really, people that do dangerous, stupid stunts for money (whatever the cause) are one of the mainstays of the Darwin Awards. People are stupid when it comes to what appears to be "easy money". I bet if you placed an ad in the paper saying you'd give $10,000 to anyone that let you shoot them in the arm with a .45, your phone would ring with volunteers. The world is dumb. This is just the world trying to correct itself.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    95. Re:Killed?? by trb · · Score: 1
      When you commit sucide you "kill yourself"

      It is deceptive to describe suicide simply as a killing. "Woman killed herself" or "Woman killed by her own greed" would be clearer.

    96. Re:Killed?? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There was a similar case in Denver, Colorado

      Here, it was blamed on drug use and not the true killer. Oh well. If it weren't for DEA misinformation perhaps this wii tragedy could have been averted.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    97. Re:Killed?? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Boring. Far better is Yiannis Kouros, who competed regularly in the Melbourne to Sydney ultramarathon, near 600 miles, if I recall. He was so good he'd often start /a day/ behind his competitors and still win. While this ultramarathonman.com is all about flashy self aggrandizing, Kouros "is undefeated in any continuous world-class ultra-marathon competition beyond 100 miles. He holds every record from 100 miles to 1,000 miles, from 200 km to 1,600 km, and from 1 day to 10 days."

    98. Re:Killed?? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You generally use 'killed' when someone dies by some external mechanism. When someone old dies you don't say they were killed by old age.

    99. Re:Killed?? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 0

      At the very least she should have been aware of the possibility of her bladder bursting, which I don't think is something that can really be fixed (you've already poisoned your entire body cavity).

      Didn't everyone's 6th grade teacher tell them about Tycho Brahe's death when they got to the Renaissance? The dude died in agonizing pain over the course of eleven days.

    100. Re:Killed?? by niktemadur · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Water poisoning isn't that well known.

      Agreed. I seem to recall the bizarre story of an american woman in the seventies and eighties, who happened to have the highest registered IQ in Mensa (her succesor was Marilyn Vos Savant - two females in a row!). This lady, who suffered from manic-depressive disorder, became obsessed with water and made herself force-drink ridiculous amounts of it. She died one day from what was classified as something like 'internal drowning', which is to say, without being submerged in the stuff itself. And she wasn't even trying to hold it in.

      It's quite possible that this story may be an urban legend, so if anybody has the facts on had to prove or disprove it, please post!

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    101. Re:Killed?? by MoriaOrc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If you knew you were going to be in a snail eating contest, wouldn't you do a bit of research beforehand to make sure there were no dangers before doing it?


      Similarly, if you were going to hold a snail-eating contest, wouldn't you want to do some research to make sure it wasn't going to put all your participants lives at risk?

      I think it could reasonably be argued that most of the contestants expected the people running a contest, or another public event, would have done this kind of research and so would have ignored doing it for themselves (if it even crossed their minds to do some research). The mere fact that someone is publicly holding a contest where snails are eaten implies that (though in this case obviously not correctly) it is safe to eat large quantities of snails or else the company or people sponsoring this contest would not be holding it.
    102. Re:Killed?? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      So if said nurse did call in and her call was played on the air, odds are that the contestants heard her, too. Depends on the station's reaction to it. If she was ridiculed by the station for her opinion, some participants might not have taken her seriously. Their problem for taking the station more seriously than a nurse? Well, to the contestants, it was just a lady claiming to be a nurse...

      If you knew you were going to be in a snail eating contest, wouldn't you do a bit of research beforehand to make sure there were no dangers before doing it? It's more obvious to most people that snails might be a risk than water... Water poisoning is such an outlandish condition that most people won't even conceive that it could happen... (other than as an euphemism for drowning...)
    103. Re:Killed?? by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Sure Americans aren't taught about this, unless they play football, basketball, soccer, are members of the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, go hiking, camping, or attend a required Physical Education course in Junior High or High School. In ALL of these places I was taught about the dangers of drinking too much water, especialy when it's really hot. But then, I grew up in California where people do lots of outdoor activities and it sometimes gets hot. Just like this woman, who attended the same public schools that I did.

      She was ignorant, absolutely. The DJs were even more ignorant and stupid for not warning participants of the danger. I think her family may have a case against the radio statio, but that doesn't mean she didn't act foolishly. It's the "coming together" of these stupid people that was the problem (notice that none of the other contest participants died or was injured).

    104. Re:Killed?? by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 1

      "but everyone knows that's dangerous stuff. Been in an airport recently? The terrorists are now using it."

      No, their using dihydrogen dioxide , stupid.

      --
      Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    105. Re:Killed?? by geminidomino · · Score: 1


      Didn't everyone's 6th grade teacher tell them about Tycho Brahe's death when they got to the Renaissance? The dude died in agonizing pain over the course of eleven days.


      Pheh. You're kidding, right? In 12 years of school, Tycho Brahe was mentioned exactly 0 times.

    106. Re:Killed?? by tcc3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean the guy from Penny Arcade? (kidding!)

    107. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sure Americans aren't taught about this, unless they play football, basketball, soccer, are members of the Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts, go hiking, camping, or attend a required Physical Education course in Junior High or High School. In ALL of these places I was taught about the dangers of drinking too much water, especialy when it's really hot. But then, I grew up in California where people do lots of outdoor activities and it sometimes gets hot. Just like this woman, who attended the same public schools that I did.

      That's weird; I did most of these too (basketball, soccer, Boy Scouts, hiking, camping, PE in junior high and high school), and I don't recall ever being told about this. Maybe you're younger than me (32), or maybe it's the geography (I grew up in Virginia and Tennessee).

    108. Re:Killed?? by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Google hyponatremia.

      http://geo-outdoors.info/hyponatremia.htm

      There have also been past incidents where frats, having been banned from using alcohol in initiations (to prevent alcohol poisoning), switched to water, because "water is safe!"

      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,146359,00.html (short version)
      http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/ a/2005/02/04/BAGNSB576121.DTL (longer article)

      http://www.mashinc.org/resources-essay-water.html (another frat initiation using water that resulted in death)

      There's a reason they tell you to eat and drink and the trail... and not just drink. If you want to get into the nitty-gritty of the mechanisms of water posioning, consider this:

      1. Your nervous system uses electrical impulses
      2. These electrical impulses rely on ions from such elements as Sodium (Na), Potassium (K), and Calcium
      3. These electrical impulses regulate everything from brain function to the beating of your heart
      4. Imbalance of ions due to excessive water consumption without some sort of accompanying salt (for example, a snack bar, or a bag of chips) disrupts your nervous system
      5. Various organs shut down, or go unregulated
      6. You die

      See: http://www.people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes2.htm

    109. Re:Killed?? by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because someone will do that same silly contest for a can of pringles as they would for a wii You underestimate how salty pringles are....
    110. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second that! The title make it sound like a competition with Wiis, but the Wii was the award for a water drinking competition.

      I would suggest "Woman dies trying to win a Wii" -- but then the article would get far fewer readers

    111. Re:Killed?? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Funny that people call her stupid for not knowing it. I have on many occasions been call stupid because I said that it could happen.

    112. Re:Killed?? by treeves · · Score: 2, Funny
      . . .exercising in moderation. . .

      That's funny. I consider moderating a form of exercise, too!

      Oh, you meant physical exercise, didn't you.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    113. Re:Killed?? by miro+f · · Score: 1
      In ALL of these places I was taught about the dangers of drinking too much water


      you were in both the Boy Scouts AND the Girl Scouts? I know we're all about equal opportunity but this is ridiculous.
      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    114. Re:Killed?? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why we need to increase our efforts to get the word out about the dangers of DHMO.

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    115. Re:Killed?? by arth1 · · Score: 0
      Not only is it ridiculous to assume that she had *enough* facts, but the tone of your entire post is insulting and for lack of a better term, soulless.
      There are 3 children out there who just lost their mother due to a competition noone would have expected could end in death and you see fit to call her stupid and issue glib remarks like "Lady 3 - Darwin 0". I'm sorry, but i find that a bit disgusting.

      What's disgusting is that emotional arguments ("think of the children!") sends reason out the door. Whether or not her kids will suffer without a mother has no relevance to whether what she did was stupid or not.

      With regard to her supposed stupidity, the keyword is expected.

      No, the keyword is reason. Lack of reasoning is stupidity. Expectations or circumstances can explain the stupidity, but not transmute it into anything else.

      Yes, a lady died. But no matter how tragic it is doesn't change the facts - she could have deduced both that it might be unsafe and that something was wrong when her body complained, and not doing so is stupidity. Tragic or not, she was stupid and paid a very high price. Whether you think the price was too high for the amount of stupidity doesn't remove the stupidity.
      Think about it: If it shouldn't be expected that people figure out on their own that too much water is bad for you, how come there's not millions of us dying?

      Except that this lady had already procreated, this is rather similar to the young couple who won a Darwin award for climbing into a helium balloon. They probably didn't know all the facts either, but had they been smarter, they could have reasoned and decided against it even without knowing the danger beforehand. The amount of reasoning is what separates men from monkeys, and you should expect a grown-up human to think through possible consequences and deduce cause from effect. If you can't, you are stupid, like it or not.

      --
      *Art
    116. Re:Killed?? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 1

      And you're right; all the stupid talk about how we supposedly need 8 glasses of water a day makes it worse. I've had people tell me I should be drinking that much water, regardless of how much food or drink I take in. That figure doesn't take into account all the water in your food, for one thing...

      Actually, there's no scientific evidence period that non-active people need to drink a set amount of water. The "eight 8-ounce glasses a day" myth is simply one of the most successful urban legends of all time.

    117. Re:Killed?? by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      How about "Woman dies in competition for Wii". That's shorter, more accurate and not misleading.

    118. Re:Killed?? by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 2, Informative

      That number came from the fact people pee 1-2L of urine in a day. So some bright dude said, well if you urinate 5-8 cups of water per day, then it must be essential to drink that much. Then some one else read something this dude wrote and misquoted CUPS for GLASSES. And then some other group thought... Well, more is better right? So we'll quote 8 glasses of water.

      You're right about the coke. Though a sport drink like gatoraid would be better. Mind you, not every glass, or you'll be getting too much sodium. Your body only needs that amount of electrolytes if you're sweating up a storm. (cause your sweat is salty)

      I am surprised the group running the competition didn't have rehydration salts. I think they should be investigated for criminal negligence. They probably shouldn't be charged though.

    119. Re:Killed?? by avdp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree.

      Let's look at another contest show involving extreme acts. Fear Factor. These people do seemingly incredibly dangerous and/or stupid things: balancing on beams at incredible heights, underwater stunts, staying in boxes with snakes, spiders, etc - either the grossest things. But the truth of the matter is that the venomous animals aren't, the stuff they eat are gross, but safe, they are wearing harnesses at those heights, and there are divers with oxygen tanks ready to give it to the contestant if the first signs of distress. This contest is safe, well researched and the contestants know it, expect it and they have ever right to.

      This station screwed up big time. And you can be sure they know it, just bracing for the civil lawsuit or even a criminal indictments. There defense will be we didn't know, or we wouldn't have done it. We'll see how far that gets them.

    120. Re:Killed?? by Reverend528 · · Score: 1
      pure water without electrolytes is a recipe for disaster

      Electrolytes: what people crave!

    121. Re:Killed?? by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      It's about the electrolye concentration. You can alter that by decreasing the amount of electrolytes (sweating, then replacing water but not electrolytes) or increasing the amount of water (drinking water much faster than your body can get rid of it).

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    122. Re:Killed?? by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 1

      Indeed, in fact I understand Alexander lost more of his men from over-drinking water after crossing a desert than he ever did in a battle.

      --
      It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
    123. Re:Killed?? by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      From the title, I was expecting to find that the Wiimote had claimed another victim.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    124. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know about other countries, but here in the USA, we simply aren't taught about the danger of water poisoning and electrolyte depletion.

      It's fairly well known here in the UK, not because we have a great education system, but because water poisoning is the most common cause of death amongst ectasy users, and ecstasy is very popular. (Although ectasy deaths from any cause are very rare.)

    125. Re:Killed?? by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      B-but I thought Tycho's futures were green...

    126. Re:Killed?? by quacking+duck · · Score: 1
      I think you should move someplace without all the snow and ice. Rubber tires and ice just don't go together; never have, never will. I've never understood how people ever thought it was normal to expect people to drive in such dangerous conditions far beyond the design limits of their vehicles.

      I live in a mid-sized city that got a lot of snow today; about time, frankly. Had the ice a few weeks back. Minimal accidents and no fatalities in both cases (AFAIK).

      We don't get the damage-causing hurricanes that can cause truly massive damage from winds and flooding, and we're at extremely low risk of getting carved up by tornadoes, or shattered by earthquakes, or spit on by volcanoes.

      If one only considers the risk of being killed due to Mother Nature's effects, I prefer where I am versus most other choice places to live.

    127. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, I don't think I've been called "stupid", but I've definitely met with a lot of disbelief when I've told people about it. Basically, they think it's impossible unless you're exercising to an extreme level, and then gorge yourself with a couple gallons of water or something; they don't take it seriously at all. While death is obviously fairly rare, it can still have noticeable effects at lesser levels, like a bad headache. Wikipedia has a nice article on it.

      This all goes back to the cultural ignorance I believe we have of this. It's just like drinking and driving was 30+ years ago, smoking 30+ years ago, etc., except that it's not something that actually kills many people. Someone else said they were told about it, but maybe this is something they're doing more lately for the youngest generation. Back in my day (and I'm only 32), I don't recall ever being warned about this. Gatorade was also introduced when I was young IIRC, so I think this is a newer concern.

    128. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's no scientific evidence period that non-active people need to drink a set amount of water. The "eight 8-ounce glasses a day" myth is simply one of the most successful urban legends of all time.

      Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. It reminds me of the government-sponsored "four food groups". Our knowledge of nutrition really still isn't that good: notice that the government only recently (1992) revised these food groups and created the "food pyramid". Many generations were fed the BS about the "4 food groups" before they figured out it was a totally insufficient guide to nutrition.

    129. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's interesting. Over on this side of the pond, methamphetamine has gotten very popular (marijuana is also very popular).

    130. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I live in a large metropolis that never gets snow. We also don't have hurricanes, high winds, flooding, tornadoes (unless you count "dust devils" which only have enough power to pick up pieces of paper), earthquakes, or volcanoes. The only problems we have are high heat in the summer, and ongoing concerns about a possible water shortage in the future. No natural disasters ever happen here.

      I don't really mind snow and ice, as long as I don't have to drive in it (e.g., it's great for skiing). For some really strange reason, no one's bothered coming up with vehicles that actually can travel safely in these conditions, except maybe snowmobiles. However, strangely, snowmobiles are neither popular, nor legal on public roadways.

    131. Re:Killed?? by Robocoastie · · Score: 1

      yea but that wouldn't sell papers now would it? Don't you understand how journalism works? If it's something the status quo considers weird (any activity other than watching Football, or Basketball for recreation for example) then it must always be pissed on by the media because they don't make any money from that.

    132. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ignorance is no defence regarding law. That's about it. It is not exactly a natural law of reality.

    133. Re:Killed?? by Aptgetupdate · · Score: 1

      It's true, and a very good point. I'm wondering if there should be allowance for motive, though. I mean, risking your life for a Nintendo should certainly score you more Darwin Award points than the same act performed in the name of science.

    134. Re:Killed?? by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      Along with high school sports, physical therapy, child birth, etc. Actually there a lot of things that "stress" your body and make you feel like you're going to die (ask your mom), but are relatively safe. But drinking massive amounts of water all at once with no electrolytes is not one of them. The radio station should have known better. Five minutes of googling could have told them that. Hell, if they'd just given them some Gatorade along with the water, she might still be alive. And the competition would have been just as retarded^Wchallenging.

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    135. Re:Killed?? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Agreed. While it's true that I would indeed do research before doing any contest, I would feel fairly safe competing in said contest if an organization was sponsoring it (unless they put out the disclaimer: YOU MAY BE HURT OR DIE AS A RESULT OF COMPETING IN THIS CONTENT).

    136. Re:Killed?? by BaltikaTroika · · Score: 1

      Plants crave electrolytes!

      PS: If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny... but I think we're the only two people to have seen Idiocracy. :) Next time, throw in a Futurama quote and you'll be in karma heaven.

    137. Re:Killed?? by smchris · · Score: 1

      Well, I suppose there was a standard competition release if legalese is your concern. But it's still like "snake-handling for prizes". I don't think it absolves the station from civil liability even if stupidity often serves as a de facto defense against criminal intent.

      And if it is uncommon, where does that eliminate liability? Isn't it the responsibility of the organization staging the stunt to research it?

      There's a reason it's called an electrolyte "balance". I know Ultrarunning magazine some years ago told the story of one runner who suffered a heart attack after consuming mass qualities of water in hot conditions over several hours and similarly upsetting his balance on the dilution side. If I remember, he credited his survival to his son dogging the doctors about this unusual possibility.

    138. Re:Killed?? by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      Or how about just "Woman dies from drinking too much water" as that is actually what the story is about.

    139. Re:Killed?? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Yet again, our pathetic public education system has let us down on something quite basic about our bodies.

      Education system? Screw that...lets blame the corporations. Specifically, Pepsi. They had the perfect marketing campaign under their noses all these years: "Drink Gatorade or DIE!!!!!!1!!1!" The fact that they didn't capitalize on that (and educate everyone in the process) represents a failure to their shareholders (and everyone else).

    140. Re:Killed?? by digitalgoddess · · Score: 1

      True, but if you were feeling the symptoms...that might...I don't know...alert you to the fact that you might be sick. or dying. and should maybe stop. immediately.

    141. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, as a young male, was unofficially in the girl scouts in my sisters troop (long story :p) I was actually permitted to participate in some of the activities officially, like the cookie sales and in things like the nature hikes. It was a lot more fun than the boy scouts ever was (and hey, what do you know, I wasn't allowed to go on the camp outs in either group :P)

      In all seriousness though, while I did learn about this in the girl scouts, I never learned about it in the boy scouts, nor in any of the required PE classes in elementary school. I can't talk about junior high/high school PE classes since I was exempt from them due to health problems.

    142. Re:Killed?? by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here is a case where the family would indeed be justified in suing the radio station.



      Sad... the captcha is "atrocity" for this post.

    143. Re:Killed?? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      i seem to recall hearing/reading that once you get to the point where you're feeling it, it's too late. and from the same source; once it's too late, it's too late. there's nothing you can do about it, but stew in the knowledge that you're done for. i could be wrong, but remember this factoid sticking out when i heard about a water poisoning death...

    144. Re:Killed?? by hey! · · Score: 1

      It seems a lot of people, and me included, before today assumed that drinking a lot of water results in the side effect of needing to pee really bad.


      This is one of those obscure factoids that one picks up. I remember hearing a doctor who worked the finish line at marathons talk about how he found many more runners in serious danger from drinking too much water than runners who were dangerous dehydrated.

      I think the conclusion should be that anybody who does a contest that involves some kind of physical stress (e.g. eating, drinking, staying awake) should have a doctor or nurse on hand, or at least a competent medical opinion of the risks. The station apparently got legal releases, so they had no problems realizing they needed to call in their lawyer. In fact, this shows that they at least had some idea that what they were doing was dangerous. Why you'd talk to a lawyer but not a doctor is beyond me.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    145. Re:Killed?? by Tim_UWA · · Score: 1

      What about, say, a pie eating contest? While pies are perfectly safe to eat, if you eat 600 of them you will die. So does that mean that a pie eating contest is dangerous and shouldn't be held, or that a person should know their own limits and stop when they have reached them?

    146. Re:Killed?? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      You don't think that has anything to do with the fact that city water sucks donkey balls?

      Seriously, who actually drinks that stuff anymore?

      Fun experiment: dump your ice tray into your kitchen sink and let it melt overnight. Observe the powdery residue left behind and remember that you're drinking that stuff.

      I stick to distilled.

    147. Re:Killed?? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      ...just to get them a luxury item they'd still have to keep putting money into, will be obsolete in five years, and that the kids themselves probably badgered her for months to get them!

      Hmm, that puts it all in perspective. The radio station has clearly been infiltrated by communists, out to sabotage the economy by killing good consumers.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    148. Re:Killed?? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If she'd done if for a PS3, would that qualify?

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    149. Re:Killed?? by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      I agree - outside of the medical profession and endurance atheletes, this is not well known. I am in the military and have been told pretty much to "keep drinking water" my whole career. It wasn't until I started competing in triathlons that I learned of Hypoatremia (within a week of a DC police officer dying from it). At any rate - if you are going to be out sweating a lot (i.e. marathon training in heat and humidity) make sure you have a soure of electrolytes with your fluids. Personally I use watered-down gatorade but sometimes I'll do water+salt pills in a race if they are only serving poweraid (can't stand the stuff).

      I am also curious what the nurse told the radio station - I wonder if it would have made a difference. There is a difference between saying "you can hurt yourself" and "you can get hypoatremia and die. If you get a headache, stop and go to a doctor immediately."

      Sad.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    150. Re:Killed?? by displague · · Score: 1

      Had the competition been "Drink alcohol for a Wii", there is no way the radio station could avoid responsibility for this.

      Jennifer was trying to show everyone that she would do whatever it took to make her kids happier. She exercised great will and ability. Unfortunately, we entrust our safety to numbers and power. The media company responsible should reconsider making stunts out of simple biological processes.

      I think "they" should be shut down for endangerment, negligence, and third degree homicide. But who are "they"? Can companies be charged with homicide?

      Did they even have medics on hand? It's cold-hearted and wrong to blame the mother. The public trusts multi-million-dollar groups have done their homework before risking peoples' lives. You expect that they know the boundaries. Seemingly, you would be "stupider" for riding a fast roller coaster than entering a water drinking contest. I wouldn't mind seeing their radio tower melt straight to hell.

      --
      Marques Johansson
    151. Re:Killed?? by mqsoh · · Score: 1

      And you're right; all the stupid talk about how we supposedly need 8 glasses of water a day makes it worse. I've had people tell me I should be drinking that much water, regardless of how much food or drink I take in. That figure doesn't take into account all the water in your food, for one thing, and drinking that much pure water without electrolytes is a recipe for disaster, or at least a headache.
      Well, the wiki says that it's dangerous to drink a lot of water 'in a sitting,' so I don't think it's necessarily true that that number is bad - made up, sure...but not dangerous.

      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. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
    152. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not an obscure factoid in the least. Anyone in a health related profession can tell you this. IMO what the public school system needs is basic physiology as a mandatory course in grade school.

    153. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In basic training (Air Force BMT), we were told to drink 2 1 quart canteens a day, in addition to drinking at least 3 (approximately 8 ounce) glasses of water every meal.

      This was mandated even after a trainee died of overhydration.

      Besides, it's not 8 glasses of water, it's 8 cups, which is 64 ounces or half a gallon. A typical glass found in a restaurant or at home is more along the lines of 16 ounces.

    154. Re:Killed?? by SeanMac · · Score: 1

      In BCT for the Army, in Ft. Jackson, SC, we had to drink 1-1.25 1 quart canteens an hour, in addition to one glass with every meal. Of course, this was in the summer... They were more worried about dehydration that overhydration. Shit, in the fall, we still had hydration formations in the evening. Made for great late-night wake-up trips to the bathroom. :)

    155. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, this article provides a nice counterbalance to all the bullshit posted about Sony by Zonk.

    156. Re:Killed?? by Omkar · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's a lot lower than I thought. Those figures have to vary dramatically, though, since I remember a couple times in India when I was thirsty on a hot day, and downed a 2L bottle of water over an hour or so.

    157. Re:Killed?? by MoriaOrc · · Score: 1

      Well, for one thing I would say that eating 600 pies in one sitting is rather unlikely compared to drinking enough water to get water poisoning in one sitting (the later being possible).

      In any case, I would say the people hosting the competition have a certain responsibility to keep it generally safe.

      With the case in the article, where there was probably at least a fairly high chance of someone being hurt, that responsibility would have been anywhere from making sure people susceptible to water intoxication did not participate to canceling or changing the way their contest worked. Perhaps continuously giving people water wasn't a good idea, you don't need to drink a couple gallons of water to have a strong urge to go to the bathroom. Or giving them something that would keep their electrolytes up (Wikipedia says this low electrolyte ballance is the cause of water intoxication) instead of water. Heck, there's even a chance for some sponsorship from Gatorade in that case.

      With your example, if the people in charge of a pie eating contest went and asked a doctor (something the people holding this contest not only didn't do, but they apparently ignored free advice when it was offered), and the doctor told them that, then I would say it would be their responsibility to say something like "It is possible, if you eat several hundred pies, that it will cause severe health problems up to and including death ... so know your limits." Since the probability of someone eating so many is very low, they don't need to be as careful.

    158. Re:Killed?? by scottgfx · · Score: 1

      And you are using "their" instead of "They're". Witch... er, Which is more stupid?

      --
      It's mandatory to wash your hands before returning to the land of Dairy Queen.
    159. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      faggot

    160. Re:Killed?? by eraser.cpp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "ignorance is no defence"

      You honestly think this person deserved to die for their mistake? I didn't know there was such a thing as water poisoning, and this sounds like a reasonable set of circumstances to me. We're talking about a human life here! A mother of three who she entered the contest for no less. The true gravity of what has happened to her and her family should not be quickly discarded for people to harshly criticize her for not knowing. This is a complete tragedy, not a criminal who electrocuted himself while robbing a bank or other situation which would actually be worthy of a "haha darwin award".

    161. Re:Killed?? by mark2003 · · Score: 1

      A Nintendo fan boy or somebody who is taking the title way too seriously.

      The woman died in a Wii related competition, this is correct as she died because of entering a competition to win a Wii, therefore a Wii related competition. The title is a pun on the word Wii, which sounds like the word wee (i.e. to urinate).

      The thing to be angry about here is the reckless behaviour of the radio station - they killed that woman and that should be corporate manslaughter. The DJ was even warned by a medical professional so he really is in the sh*t.

    162. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it modded?

    163. Re:Killed?? by cluke · · Score: 1

      Although it is obviously not Nintendo's fault, it is an intriguing example of the proverbial butterfly effect. I wonder who first came up with the name "Wii" - they could never have imagined that by choosing this name they would be indirectly responsible for someone's death!

      Of course, a much more direct liability lays on the shoulders of the idiot radio station. But it can't be denied that the ultimate point of origin was in Nintendo's choice of name (though obviously no culpability lies there).

    164. Re:Killed?? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Oh please. I more than understand that this was related to the name of the console, but I'm simply arguing that making Nintendo LIABLE for what happened is pure bullshit. I'm merely arguing that the real people responsible are: A) The woman and B) The radio station. Was Nintendo technically involved? Yes. But should they pay damages? No way. (And I assure you, I'm a big advocate for making corporations pay their dues, but this is not such a time.)

    165. Re:Killed?? by Duds · · Score: 1

      Actually if your body has a tolerence for that stuff, usually because of regular drinking. Coffee and Tea are just as effective as water in rehydrating.

    166. Re:Killed?? by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1
      It's a bit harsh to call it stupidity; water poisoning isn't that well known.
      Actually I thought water poisoning was well known, I learned about it in high school chemistry, many moons ago, and the radio station should have sort medical advice, as a matter of course.
      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
    167. Re:Killed?? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe not. On the other hand, common sense says if you drink a lot of water and don't go to the potty, it starts to hurt after a while; and when something hurts that's usually your body dropping a hint that you're doing something bad to it.

      On the third hand, common sense isn't all that common.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    168. Re:Killed?? by Woek · · Score: 1

      I've heard it was even worse: Oxygen dihydride is what she drank. Everyone knows hydrides are dangerous!

    169. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in _reality_ she deserved to die. Because the reality of the situation is that if you drink too much plain water too fast you will die.

      And ignorance of the world we live in can get you killed, and killed fast.

      The tragedy is that she killed herself for something so minor, and this leaves her husband to raise the 3 kids alone. At least the radio station will have to pay for the loss, because they fucked up too, by not checking to see if their contest was safe with a medical doctor, any of which would have advised against said contest.

      But hey, you are welcome to live in your imaginary safe dream world where nobody deserves to die, no matter how badly they fuck up. And maybe we can eat all the lollipops and ice cream there too, and never get any cavities, or get fat!

      Good luck with that!

    170. Re:Killed?? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1
      Many people didn't think drinking large quantities of water could kill you

      It's called "Drowning" ;)

      But seriously, anybody should know that excessive use of anything will be harmful. "Excessive" leaves room for interpretation, but once your body starts to protest, the right judgement would be to listen to it.
      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    171. Re:Killed?? by TheRealBlueEAGLE · · Score: 1

      Douglas Who?? ^^

      --
      If pro and con are opposites, what is the opposite of progress?
    172. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would've been more accurate to say the woman was induced into committing suicide.

      There's nothing wrong with "killed" BTW. "Killed by water" is a valid phrase. Words are broad; interpretations (here) are narrow.

    173. Re:Killed?? by name*censored* · · Score: 1
      To be fair, no-one really DESERVES to die for their mistakes - but at the same time, it's "survival of the fittest" (especially including mental fitness these days) - people must be careful before doing anything (especially voluntarily) that would stress their bodies. And MOST of the darwin awards are exactly this kind of thing - they weren't robbing banks or killing babies, they were just doing something particularly stupid that led indirectly or directly to their deaths. Yes it is a tragedy, especially for the woman's family, but mothers die and leave behind children without being responsible for their own deaths all the time. Why should this mother's death illicit more concern than the thousands of mothers in the western world who die of disease/violence/misfortunes they weren't themselves responsible for, let alone the millions of mothers in second-and-third world countries who die of avoidable disease/starvation/civil conflict? Your concern may be warranted but that doesn't mean it's fairly distributed.

      And besides, I don't think you should be so harsh on people who's scorn will probably help discourage people from doing the same or similar things in the future (peer pressure and whatnot. It's like that token fat kid in your class everyone made fun of but came to the reunion looking like a bodybuilder; it has bad intentions but good effects.
      --
      Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    174. Re:Killed?? by generic · · Score: 1

      Thats a funny sig! thanks for the laugh.

      --
      Microsoft aggravates my tourettes syndrome.
    175. Re:Killed?? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      water poisoning isn't that well known
      Here in the UK there have been several stories about people at raves/clubs on ecstasy dying from exactly this problem, it's not that unusual.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    176. Re:Killed?? by headplant · · Score: 1

      In Chico (about 80 miles north of Sacramento) there was a death due to water poisoning in a fraternity hazing incident a couple of years ago. It was all over the news. You'd think people in the area would be aware of water poisoning, especially a radio station.

    177. Re:Killed?? by alta · · Score: 1

      Hey man, it must be geography because I'm 30, grew up in Mobile Alabama (still there), hot and sticky, and took PE AND health, was on the golf team, boy scouts, and spent a good bit of time hiking, fishing, beaching, camping and other outdoorsy things and I didn't learn about water poisoning until my wife (nurse) told me about it.

      Apparently I didn't learn how to prevent run-on sentences either.

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    178. Re:Killed?? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Darwin Awards sometimes just don't make sense. I remember reading an award about some girl who had a habit of chewing her hair, and over the years it grew into a huge hairball in her stomach which killed her. There's no way that girl should've been placed among the (many, many) morons who hammer on unexploded artillery shells, but that's the way that site is, so I have almost no doubt that the water woman will be at least an honorable mention this year.

    179. Re:Killed?? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Everything is toxic (including water) - the dose makes the poison, not the substance. I thought that was common sense!

    180. Re:Killed?? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      I would feel fairly safe competing in said contest if an organization was sponsoring it (unless they put out the disclaimer: YOU MAY BE HURT OR DIE AS A RESULT OF COMPETING IN THIS CONTENT).

      Even then, I think most people would figure that the organization was just trying to cover their asses, and there wasn't any *real* danger, but threw that in there just-in-case something did go wrong so they couldn't be sued.

      It's the equivalent of crying wolf- disclaimers are on so many things, that when the truly dangerous things have disclaimers warning you of death or injury, they're generally ignored.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    181. Re:Killed?? by ubergenius · · Score: 1

      Snow storms don't bother me, because we're, for the most part, prepared to deal with them as a society, and I am as an individual. It's all a matter of knowing your limits. If it's snowing very hard, I don't go to work. If it's moderate, I make a judgement call and usually go to work and drive extra carefully. And during the winter months, I always make sure I have good snow tires, my car is in good shape, I have an emergency kit in my car, and I drive carefully, even in fairly nice weather, in case of black ice.

      In the grand scheme of possible natural disasters, I'll take winter weather over the rest any day.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    182. Re:Killed?? by ubergenius · · Score: 1

      The ultimate point of origin is the dawn of the universe, which expanded and cooled to spawn the various galaxies, then solar systems, one of which eventually contained a planet with sufficient atmospheric composition to spring forth life, which then evolved into semi-intelligent species of creatures, one of which continued to evolve into even more intellectually capable creatures, who then formed complex societies, and even entities called "corporations", one of which came into being in the 1800's (the calendar... another creation with the ultimate origin being the dawn of the universe) called Nintendo which made playing cards, and eventually almost a century later made a game console with "moving pictures" called the NES, which spawned the gaming age where companies competed for the best console available, which continued until the company decided to release a console called the Wii to compete with other companies.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    183. Re:Killed?? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      PS: If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny... but I think we're the only two people to have seen Idiocracy. :)

      That makes three of us... just saw it this weekend, finally.

      I think Idiocracy (unfortunately) went unseen by too many people for the "plants crave electrolytes" to become an internet meme, but I enjoyed seeing the quote here.

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    184. Re:Killed?? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Your newspapers are too wide. "Dying for a Wii!" is all it would say in UK greats like /The Sun/.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    185. Re:Killed?? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      You're alluding to "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
      This was not ignorance of the law.
      This was ignorance of human physiology or biochemistry.

      One should not expect the whole planet to know about salt pumps.
      The radio station is certainly in part culpable in the death, IMO.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    186. Re:Killed?? by Black-Man · · Score: 1

      Yeah... but the dude drank and smoked into his 30's and... flash! decided to run. Big shocker... he dies from a massive.

    187. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention I took Health class too. However, this probably doesn't count; we were actually graded in that class by how many pages we had in our notebook, regardless of what was written on them. I got a bad grade because I had small, concise writing. Another guy got a high grade because he had lots of pages that just said "Health is cool". Ah, the American public education system...

    188. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Just in case anyone thought the military did things intelligently, here's proof otherwise.

    189. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geeze... it sucks for her kids. To have their mother die, because of an idiotic stunt in order to make a urine joke. Plus, they didn't even get the Wii.
    190. Re:Killed?? by permawired · · Score: 0

      I think it could reasonably be argued that most of the contestants expected the people running a contest, or another public event, would have done this kind of research and so would have ignored doing it for themselves

      This is exactly why the direction US society is headed is troublesome. People have become so reliant on having things done for them, when they aren't bad things happen. To make matters worse our legal system will back that up. So what you have are people that feel very comfortable about being lazy and ignorant because they can sue someone else for their lack of effort. It's not hard to take responsibility for one's life and actions... and if we all did it that way we could likely throw out half of the law suits that get started every year. Just my 2 copper.

    191. Re:Killed?? by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      I was not trying to put the emphasize on "She was stupid for doing this", I was listing examples of things she was killed by to emphasize that she was "killed" by something, because to be killed requires an object or action that did the killing. I think that stupid was the first thing that popped into my head because even before I found out about water poisoning a few years back, I was able to figure out that drinking lots of liquid and trying to hold it was something that my body did not like, and there was probably a good medical reason for this inherent biological fact, and I don't need a doctor to tell me not to do it. I will definately concede that I was not looking for the perfect word to describe the exact nature of why she died and was well rewarded for my lack of effort. Ignorace would have been a much better choice of words. This was meant to be a reply to the parent post, not a new topic, but I guess that is what slashdot is about, every idea brings the next one.

      I think it was a very tragic event that had contributing factors in our whole mass marketing culture. The marketing that made the video game so neccessary for her kids. The radio station that was trying to intentionally make people suffer, just so they could get some ratings. That does not change the fact the article was correct in saying she was "killed."

    192. Re:Killed?? by lazyl · · Score: 1

      Why can't both be true?

      Because if she was drinking a sports drink like gatoraid instead of water then she'd have been fine.

      This the fault of irresponsible event organizers who didn't understand the hazards of water poisioning and lead the competitors to believe that it was safe to drink that much water.

      --
      Aw crap, ninjas!
    193. Re:Killed?? by Miaomiao · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it says something about the girl scouts being more educational than many other organizations :) Boy scouts say "be prepared" but being told to constantly drink water is rather dangerous is rather interesting. Until recently, I don't ever recall being told that such a thing is possible (although it makes quite a bit of sense)

      In reply to the troll, on the ot end of things. Most guys I know would get a kick out of going to girl scouts :P Think about it, he was the only guy, surrounded by girls. If anybody wants to date, guess who they'll choose (assuming they're strait of course)

    194. Re:Killed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A mother of three who she entered the contest for no less

      How about, "A mother of three, for whom she entered the contest, no less."

      I had to parse your sentence about three times before I figured out what you meant. Try English; it's fun.

    195. Re:Killed?? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Damn Yahweh's faulty designs, both in cholesterol buildup of otherwise very healthy people, and in the lack of redundant blood vessels in vital organs like the heart, which do exist in some other organs.

      What if it was part of Yahweh's plan that Jim Fixx die at 52 so people could make sarcastic comments about how pointless his life of running was?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    196. Re:Killed?? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate the moron who tagged the story darwin/darwinaward. Idiots, there is nothing fun with people dying :(

      I don't know how much of common knowledge it is that drinking massive amounts of water isn't good for you but I'm very sure that many people don't know that it is, especially elder people who don't know anything about ecstasy or drugs in general.

      I feel so sorry for her and her family, she tried to give them a console and they ended up without a mom :(

    197. Re:Killed?? by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      My parents met in a boy scout explorer troop. :)
      In 1969/71, the BSA allowed Girl Scouts of the USA and Camp Fire Girls to join Exploring, then made the Explorer program fully co-ed, and raised the upper age to 21.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploring_(Learning_f or_Life)
      And I used to go to my sister's Girl Scout meetings - I helped them learn things I had learned in Boy Scouts like knot tying or alternately got chased around the parking lot by this one crazy girl that was always trying to kiss me.
      Oh yeah, this one time I went on a camping trip with the girls to this campground on the ocean in the florida keys that is split with a Girl Scout camp and a Boy Scout camp. The boys thought only girls were on our side and when they were trying to sneak over in the dark I simply said in a deep voice, "What do you think you're doing?" and the girls turned all their flashlights on them and some screamed and ran, and others gawked for a moment before running too. That was a hilarious sight seeing them all running away. :)
    198. Re:Killed?? by lukesl · · Score: 1

      You can still get hyponatremia (decreased blood sodium levels) from drinking gatorade, so that's not the reason it was invented. Gatorade and drinks like that are a byproduct of the invention of oral rehydration salts, which I think were invented to combat cholera (which kills you by dehydration through diarrhea). The salt in Gatorade allows it to travel from the intestine to the bloodstream faster.

    199. Re:Killed?? by WCLPeter · · Score: 1
      Fercryinoutloud, she was drinking dihydrogen monoxide!!!


      Oh my... Thanks for the awesome laugh. I went to the link you provided, read through their FAQ's and other information. It took me ten minutes before my long forgotten High School Chemistry classes shook loose enough to catch the joke. I haven't laughed this hard in the longest time.

      Thanks again.
    200. Re:Killed?? by JLennox · · Score: 1

      Food pyramid was shit and was known shit. Which is why it was replaced by mypyramid.gov -- some thing I can actually stand behind, in most cases.

    201. Re:Killed?? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I'll take your word for it, but surely it was better than the "4 food group" which came before it. But my point is, the Food Pyramid only came out in 1992, which wasn't that long ago, and "mypyramid" only came out two years ago. So all these years (decades!), the USDA has been giving us wrong information. Some people probably knew the "4 food groups" was BS long before the pyramid came out, but look how long it took to finally change it and stop having everyone harp on it.

  3. Man, even water can kill you! by Derekloffin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I knew you could drown in the stuff, but dying from drinking too much of it? Wow. Didn't know that.

    1. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by mmell · · Score: 1
      Especially after complete immersion for an extended period of time!

      That said, the ultimate cause of death was cerebral swelling - the body had so much water (and relatively little salt) that systemwide swelling took place. With the brain, that's a real problem.

    2. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in UK there've been a few "ecstacy deaths", last a few years ago, that turned out not to be the ecstacy as such, but drinking too much water to avoid dehydration and overcompensating. You need to replace your body salts when drinking, or they get flushed out, and organs will fail.

      Other risks come from the chlorine put in tap water to stop bacteria from growing - well the bacteria in your guts you kind of need, for digestion etc. Boiling the water first evaporates off the chlorine, otherwise, you're disinfecting yourself everytime you drink it, an accumulative effect.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    3. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by operagost · · Score: 1

      You heard it here, kids. Now, eat up on those salty fries and chips! As for me, I'll have extra on the rim of my next margarita, please!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 5, Funny

      Water--or dihydrogen monoxide--is a dangerous chemical that we treat far too lightly! Water contributes to global warming, soil erosion, and caused the levee failures in New Orleans!

      Become informed of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide before it's too late!

    5. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by OmniChamp · · Score: 1

      One of the first principles of toxicology is that everything toxic since toxicity depends on dose and duration of exposure. Case in point.

    6. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Become informed of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide before it's too late!" Welcome to 1992...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Pojut · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is why they reccommend when you have a fever you drink Gatorade or some other sport drink...because these help keep your electrolytes high, the chances of your dying from (or being affected by) over-hydration are reduced drastically

    8. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Hamilton+Lovecraft · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, not another one of you treehugging DHMO scaremongers! Hydrogen hydroxide is safe, natural, and beneficial!

      --
      step 3: god dammit, it doesn't work
    9. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is the idiot who modded this insightful?

    10. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      The same ones who signed the petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide I assume.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    11. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by dthomas731 · · Score: 1

      That's why athletes use Gatorade or some other electrolytic drink. Years ago many long distance runners were especially prone to serious illness or death because they drank water to rehydrate.

    12. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Me, for example.

      What we need is "witty" up-moderation, a combination of "Funny" and "Insightful" which rewards the karma of the poster.

      -- KiloByte

    13. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Chr0me · · Score: 0

      Happens a lot in military basic training. Not always resulting in death, but there are a few cases each year that do. Rule was 1/2-3/4 canteen (which are about a quart) per hour not to exceed 12 canteens (or 3 gal.) per day (24 hour period, important since many of the problems came from downing the 3 gallons during the daylight hours). And that was in hot, humid weather in Texas with lots of physical activity.

    14. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chloramine is more commonly used now for tap water purification because it is more stable than chlorine...unfortunately it cant be boiled off. unless you're drinking bottled water and missing out on all the yummy things they add to your tap water, you're going to be drinking chloramine.

      unfortunately, people still think that sitting a bucket of water out for 24 hours before putting it in the fish tank will get rid of the 'chlorine' in it...chloramine doesnt go away by letting it sit out, you have to put in additives to get rid of it. boiling it also doesnt help.

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

    15. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Yeah, marathoners have to worry about this when running a marathon. They have to remember to alternate water and sports drinks when drinking liquids.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    16. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Pojut · · Score: 1

      exactly. If you can't eat to balance out your electrolytes...sport drinks are the next best thing

    17. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by the+dark+hero · · Score: 1

      Too much of anything can be considered poisonous. What we usually consider poison is something that takes a very small amount to kill you. A small amount of substance X can be too much where it takes a large amount of substance Y to be too much.

      --
      You constantly struggle for self improvement - and it shows.

      Hooray for bad Engrish on fortune cookies

    18. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sodium levels -- if you drink to much water it dilutes your sodium levels. this causes water intoxication.

    19. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by dthomas731 · · Score: 1

      I swear this is a true story. Many years ago when I was young and cruel, a coworker was describing making her babies formula with distilled water. Which you are not supposed to do because it lacks necessary electrolytes, manly sodium, calcium and magnesium. Well another coworker and I went into a false panic mode, describing what all can happen such as blood cells exploding because the salt ratio in the blood plasma gets out of wack. Her being postpartum hormonal didn't realize we (while describing an actual condition) were being sarcastic. She immediately sat on the floor and started crying saying the police were going to arrest her for trying to kill her baby. She got a lesson in biochemistry, I got a lesson in life.

    20. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Gatorade for a fever? That's a new one for me. I always thought it was chicken soup.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    21. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by leathered · · Score: 5, Informative

      Other risks come from the chlorine put in tap water to stop bacteria from growing - well the bacteria in your guts you kind of need, for digestion etc. Boiling the water first evaporates off the chlorine, otherwise, you're disinfecting yourself everytime you drink it, an accumulative effect.,

      Speaking as a former water scientist, this is complete BS. The residual levels of chlorine in drinking water in the UK are minimal, usually no more than 1 mg/l, and are maintained as a precaution to prevent contamination in the ditribution system. There is no way that this amount is capable of destroying bacteria in the gut, and chlorine being the highly reactive element that it is will combine with the first thing it finds when it hits your stomach and render it useless as a disinfectant.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    22. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by shihonage · · Score: 1

      Brawndo got what the plants crave ! It's got electrolytes !

    23. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Pojut · · Score: 1

      Well the reason for the Gatorade is to provide electrolytes...some people have a problem eating when they have a fever (case in point, my fiance...she never gets a fever that is not accomponied by trouble keeping food down)

      If you cannot get the electrolytes from food for whatever reason, gatorade (or any other sport drink that increases the electrolytes in your body) works just as well. Not to mention it is easier to keep a bottle of gatorade around at all times than it is to keep hot soup around all the time;-)

    24. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Obyron · · Score: 1

      Hyponatremia. At least when you're dancing at a rave you're sweating the water back out...

      --
      --Obyron
    25. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Two contradicting opinions, nothing unusual there, guess we need a study. Know of any that have been done?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    26. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      "you're sweating the water back out"

      Not just water though - but more often than not, it's just the water that gets replaced.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    27. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by loraksus · · Score: 1

      The gatorade powder stuff is great for when you're sick. There's something in it that makes you drink more than you would had just drank water.
      A couple weeks ago, I had bronchitis and did the "drink a lot / sweat lodge" approach to kill it and drank 3 coffee jugs of the mix to kill it. Worked well.

      More or less same premise as the chicken soup too, salty chicken soup makes you want to drink more...

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
    28. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by smackt4rd · · Score: 1
      Don't forget the flouride!
      Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.
    29. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that just felt a little too easy *lol*

      But true, flouride, on the toxicity scale, lies between arsenic and lead. It lies in the same periodic group as iodine, which your thyroid gland kinda uses. The thyroid gland is responsible (amongst other things I guess) for regulating metabolism. The disruption that flouride causes slows down the metabolism, causing lethargy/apathy and weight gain. It also disrupts insulin production, and lots of other nasty stuff. Bad. Bad flouride.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    30. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Wavicle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which you are not supposed to do because it lacks necessary electrolytes, manly sodium, calcium and magnesium.

      You should tell this to children's hospitals. Apparently you know something that they don't. Come on, it should be obvious that BABY formula would be fortified at least with sodium, calcium and magnesium.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    31. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by dthomas731 · · Score: 1

      You are right, I did my own search after I posted. But at the time, almost 30 years ago, that is what we believed (right or wrong).

    32. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Carthag · · Score: 1

      It's what your organs crave! It's got electrolytes!

    33. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other risks come from the chlorine put in tap water to stop bacteria from growing - well the bacteria in your guts you kind of need, for digestion etc. Boiling the water first evaporates off the chlorine, otherwise, you're disinfecting yourself everytime you drink it, an accumulative effect.


      Nice FUD there. Too bad you posted on a day an Ex water filtration plant employee was looking at your post.

      EVERYTHING you posted in what I quoted are wrong. You need ACID for digestion and guess what, your body generates that. The chlorine ion levels in the water on a BAD day are 2ppm that is 2 parts per million. An incredibly low dose that does NOT sanitise but reduces the growth of harmful bugs. Many MANY bacteria in your water supply are healthy with 2ppm chlorine dose. Gram Negative nasties are what you dont want and are removed by the filtration processes Chlorine and Other disinfectants are there only to help but certianly dont do the whole job.

      Finally there is no way in hell it's a "accumulative effect" Chlorine Ion is in the water and is pretty darn unstable. they gas out fast at temperatures above 15degreesC and react with carbon based chemicals fast. The swallow of water you take out of your tap will be dechlorinated by the time it hits your stomache.

      I strongly suggest you learn about basic chemistry first, Disinfection second and finally Water filtration. And learn from real textbooks, not some nutjob's website.

    34. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      "I strongly suggest you learn about basic chemistry first, Disinfection second and finally Water filtration. And learn from real textbooks, not some nutjob's website"

      I try to verify as much of what I repeat as I can, but is impossible to do it sufficiently with everything with the amount of ground work you'd have to cover to verify everything along the base that an assertion is based upon. I just have to hope for friendly people like you to to point out when you believe mistakes are being made, so I know I need to look into something in more detail. Seriously, you're friendly, they must miss you at the filtration plant.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    35. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1
      Boiling the water first evaporates off the chlorine, otherwise, you're disinfecting yourself everytime you drink it, an accumulative effect.,

      Speaking as a former water scientist, this is complete BS.

      Not to mention that you can't "boil off" chlorine; boiling is only to kill harmful bacteria in the water. Nothing actually leaves the water when you boil it, except for some steam.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    36. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have Gatorade instead of water, then. Your kidneys will go overtime anyway, so why not using the route that only damages one organ instead of killing ya? -jl

    37. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Personally I try stay away from MDMA anyway, the effects on long term memory became noticable to me during a couple of periods when I stopped using the stuff, and it's especially noticable when programming complex systems when I've found I need to tap into long term memory to augment working memory when pure working memory isn't big enough. I need that to continue earning a living... old enough to be responsible now *sulk*

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    38. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Old it may be, but a lesson that should be taught in all schools. During my time in college I had to take a public speaking course. As part of said course, we needed a persuasive speech. I gave one on the dangers of DHMO and convinced all but two people in my class to sign a petition to regulate the presence of DHMO in the local city. This was only a few years ago, and the class consisted of people from age 20 to 50. Don't always believe fancy double talk. As the person who didn't sign said to me "You told me everything it does, but didn't actually tell me what it was."

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    39. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by nacturation · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention that you can't "boil off" chlorine; boiling is only to kill harmful bacteria in the water. Nothing actually leaves the water when you boil it, except for some steam. Anything that has a lower boiling point than water will exit the pot as part of the steam.
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    40. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Water coming into the house is on the order of 99.9-99.99% disinfected (ideally). Yes, it is not purely clean. Using this for formula and serving it to the child immediately is alright because it doesn't allow time for the bacteria to grow.

      Now, if you make a batch of formula and let it sit around (esp at room temp) for a few hours/days. This has the potential for oodles of bacteria to grow in the nutrient rich solution. The advice of boiling/distilled is given with the assumption that either method effectively kills/removes enough bacteria that any remaining bacteria do not grow to any significant number. You ask how can distilled water be contaminated with bacteria? simple. If the equipment used to distill and bottle the water is not properly cleaned/maintained, you didn't sufficiently boil (yes full rolling boil not a few bubbles coming up, or the container used to make/hold formula was contaminated.

      Grump

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    41. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by pimpimpim · · Score: 1

      Forced water drinking was one of the tortures during the Spanish inquisition. Apparently, no more then eight liters of water were used per session.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    42. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I knew about this, as being from Britain and being in school in 1995, we were told about Leah Betts, a girl who died from drinking waaay too much water after doing ecstasy. She drank 7L (1.9 gal) of water in 90 minutes, and died as a consequence. Predictably, schools and news shows took the view of "ooh look ecstasy is dangerous!" instead of "lack of education about ecstasy is dangerous". Fascism.

    43. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by DemoFish · · Score: 1

      That's what happens when you drink too much water why do you think camels have a hump on their back?

    44. Re:Man, even water can kill you! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Here in UK there've been a few "ecstacy deaths", last a few years ago, that turned out not to be the ecstacy as such, but drinking too much water to avoid dehydration and overcompensating.

      Mmm, but Leah Betts died from drinking about 7 litres of water. This story says this woman drank about 2. I'm quite amazed she died. I could probably drink 2 litres of water and be OK. Never tried it, though. :-)

  4. sheesh by yagu · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not some mysterious malady. The radio station is off the scale negligent for putting contestants in the position of potential serious harm:

    I'd had this argument many times with a friend about my water intake. I've always known my intake was fine (hint: coffee counts...), but in the course of that discussion I found many articles on the problems one could encounter by drinking too much water.

    I won't claim any person on the street should know the dangers of drinking too much water, but the people putting on this contest (sorry, stunt) could have recognized they were in deep waters with a modicum of research.

    I'm not much for lawsuits, but I hope the radio station that put on this stunt makes significant remedy to the lady's family.

    1. Re:sheesh by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no doubt. I smell lawsuit coming and I doubt they'll have much of a defense.

    2. Re:sheesh by Noishe · · Score: 1

      but the people putting on this contest (sorry, stunt) could have recognized they were in deep waters with a modicum of research. oh ha ha ha ha ha... funny...
    3. Re:sheesh by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0

      They are NOT Negligent, they did WARN the contestants, and I also suspect that had a liability release that was signed by the lady as well. The only negligent person in this case was the deceased. If someone through stupidity or whatever helps cause the harm to themselves it is called "contributory negligence" and depending on the state and the finding of how much the injured party helped cause thier demise it can eliminate or greatly reduce any damages. In some states if the "contribution" was more than 50% the case is tossed out. If the station had NOT warned her then there is a real issue, or if the station didn't call 911 when she suffered harm THEN her heirs may have a case.

    4. Re:sheesh by spyder913 · · Score: 1

      I agree, and in fact that's what I said when I first heard about this a couple days ago. I have heard about this a couple of times from frat initiation events (not hazing, they swear!) where they are making them drink lots of water since it isn't alcohol, which most people know will kill you if you drink 4 gallons in 30 minutes. At least one of these was local so that might be why I took notice in the first place.

      If I were putting together a stunt for my company I would probably do some research too. I don't think that's the norm though, especially when it comes to something 'safe' like water.

    5. Re:sheesh by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My point is/was that to the casual observer (and contestant), signing a waiver and being "warned" (I didn't see anything in the article to suggest they warned how dangerous this was) would seem a mere "standard" formality and for the purposes of participating in a water-drinking contest, absurd. But, the radio station, as I pointed out, with minimal research should have known going in this was dangerous and not even hosted this contest.

      The only difference I see between this and a contest where contestants drink as much alcohol as possible to win a Wii is that to the common man, dangers and risks associated with alcohol are much more widely known and understood. And, no radio station in the world would get away with having contestants drink alcohol in a similar fashion, waivers and warnings or not.

    6. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1, Insightful
      This is not some mysterious malady. The radio station is off the scale negligent for putting contestants in the position of potential serious harm [...]

      Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    7. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Questions I would want to know about this situation:

      *Did the station Consult a medical doctor before hand about the possible health hazards of consuming large quantities of waters? If was thinking up a contest of any sort, involving ingensting large quantities of anything - hot dogs, cake, pies, pork fried rice, whatever, I would like to find out from a Doctor ahead of time the chances that someone could kill themselves, become paralyzed, have a stroke, etc by doing this?

      *Did the station then pass along the information from the doctor about the potential health risks to the participants in a written warning, signed by the participants before participation?

      *Did the station have emergency medical staff (EMT's, doctors) on hand to treat participants if something *did* go wrong? Since we are talking about a situation where there could be known medical problems, it seems to me like relying on 911, instead of pre-emptively having medical staff available at the site of the contest, would be negligent.

      *Having consulted a doctor about this, why didn't they have the participants drink something like Gatorade that would be electrolytically supplemented? Maybe Gatorade wouldn't have been appropriate, but it seems like they maybe could have mitigated the risks of this by having people drink something other than pure, bottled water - something that would help maintain an appropriate balance of nutrients, sugar, salts, etc in the blood?

      If they did not take any of those steps, it seems to me like they might have opened themselves up to some kind of legal repurcussions. I'm no lawyer, and don't really know the fine details of negligence law. But it does seem like the above steps would have been fairly easy, common-sense things to do that might have helped mitigate the risks. I don't think any sane person would put their life knowingly at risk to get their kids a Wii. I suspect that the participant probably figured that drinking water is harmless, so what's the worst that could happen - most of us would probably assume we would throw up, or get diahrea, or something, long before we would get to the point of killing ourselves. Apparently, not so.

    8. Re:sheesh by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      Or you know, maybe they could have used gatoraide instead of water. Simple enough change for them and would be totally safe.

    9. Re:sheesh by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      They are NOT Negligent, they did WARN the contestants,

      Sorry, but what did they warn them of ? "Drinking too much water can have adverse side effects."

      Haha. The average person doesn't know that drinking four liters (even less if you drink demineralized water) or more can and will kill you.

      The whole idea of this contest is fscked up. Whoever came up with this sh1t needs to go to jail so their crazy ideas don't kill any more clueless people. Sheesh.

    10. Re:sheesh by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      Don't you know that only the person or organization with the most money is ever responsible? That is why you sue the bar for selling the drink and not the person who lets themselves get drunk and then drives home.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    11. Re:sheesh by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      "Haha. The average person doesn't know that drinking four liters (even less if you drink demineralized water) or more can and will kill you."

      Since this contest was run by ordinary people (people who work at radio stations are extraordinary?) then by your definition they couldn't be expected to know any better than the people who competed.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    12. Re:sheesh by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "They are NOT Negligent..."

      OJ didn't kill anyone yet was sued for wrongful death. The radio station is facing a huge wrongful death lawsuit. You can't have someone sign a wavier and then do things that will result in death. "Here, sign this wavier and jump off this building! And if you live, you get a Wii!" The station's lucky they didn't kill any other people with their stunt.

      If I was that radio station I'd have a team of lawyers over to the survivor's house ASAP with a nice, small settlement because when this goes to court I'd hate to see the many millions they win.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:sheesh by 42Penguins · · Score: 1

      ...besides it being completely voluntary and them telling her that she should quit if she feels at risk healthwise.

    14. Re:sheesh by bloodstar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The radio station is the one holding the contest. Drinking too much water is a non obvious danger. But the radio station is the one who should perform the due dilligance.

      Just because we happen to know that water can be dangerous doesn't mean other people do. And certainly expecting a mother of 3 doing a 'contest' that sounds like something fun and silly to expect any danger from the contest is unreasonable.

      Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Trust people in charge. Think of the Milgram Experiment as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the experiment are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally listen to people they think are athority figures. And in this case, the contest holders are the athority figures.

      Beyond the lawsuit, I would not be shocked to see criminal charges against the people who ran the contest. Their actions directly led to the death of another person.

      --
      "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
    15. Re:sheesh by yali · · Score: 1

      The radio station came up with the idea, advertised it, provided an incentive to do it, and intended to make money off of it (via the publicity it got them). She agreed to participate in response to their invitation. If her agreement involved making some assumptions that a reasonable person would make, and one of those reasonable assumptions was that the station wouldn't invite her to do something dangerous without warning her, then you can argue they bear a share of the responsibility for what happened.

    16. Re:sheesh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      OJ didn't kill anyone yet was sued for wrongful death.

      OJ was sued for wrongful death because he DID kill someone (that fact is 100% certain), yet was not convicted of the crime.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    17. Re:sheesh by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      They were negligent. Do not run a contest that requires people to do something without checking to make sure it is safe. In this case the radio station was particularly culpable because they were giving the contestants the quantities of water to drink therefore implying it was safe to drink that much.

    18. Re:sheesh by TeraCo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IIRC (we had a private die in training a few years ago with this sort of thing), the symptoms that you're coming down with water related death include becoming thirsty.

      Yeah, that's an easy one to read.

      A nebulous "quit if you feel sick" warning isn't good enough when she could have done the harm before she started to notice any dangerous side effects.

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    19. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe instead of a settlement, they should just give her a Wii...

      Oh. Wait. nevermind.

    20. Re:sheesh by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Because the contestants are putting themselves in the care of the station? (at least as far as task X goes)

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    21. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not much for lawsuits, but I hope the radio station that put on this stunt makes significant remedy to the lady's family. Did anyone bother to investigate this further to determine if the contestants signed release forms that specifically indemnified the radio station (and of course, "its owners, agents, and affiliates") against any legal action resulting from potential injury and/or death from partaking in this rampant buffoonery? Most contests sponsored by companies have a release form that serves as a CYA for cases exactly like this. Remember: She could have stopped at any time. She chose to keep on drinking, despite the fact it was just water and "appeared harmless" to ingest. From everything published about this incident, no one forced her to continue.
    22. Re:sheesh by buhatkj · · Score: 1

      in all likelihood they had contestants sign a waiver to head off any possibility of lawsuit. all the same, the DJ's will probably be fired due to the obvious bad PR this will result in. I like a funny radio show as much as the next guy, but all too frequently these stupid stunts don't go well. of course, to me, _EVER_ is TOO FREQUENT. why not just stick to the fart jokes and silly noises. trivia contests are nice too. if you must, maybe do some stunts with the staff, put only themselves at risk. inevitably, when you involve the audience somebody just wants to win so bad that they go beyond their limits and get hurt. if you take a look at the wikipedia article, it points out that it's not actually all that hard to end up with water intoxication, so somebody at that station should have done their homework before running this contest. even if they aren't criminally liable, its potentially grounds for a civil suit due to their possible negligence in assessing the safety of this contest.

      --
      sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
    23. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they are negligent. They organized an event with significant (and apparently deadly) medical consequences without taking reasonable precautions to prevent a fatality.

      You can't expect the contestants, upon reading the wavier, to go find a doctor and bring them to the competition to screen for complications. For other competitions with the possibility of injury or death, they have emergency personnel on site. Yet, even after complaining of symptoms characteristic of water poisoning, they didn't have her checked out by a doctor.

    24. Re:sheesh by FallLine · · Score: 1
      Or you know, maybe they could have used gatoraide instead of water. Simple enough change for them and would be totally safe.
      No, not totally safe. Too much gatorade (high sugar content) can kill insulin-dependent diabetics too. In fact, I'd argue that that change would be statistically more likely to cause deaths and serious injury in this type of competition.
    25. Re:sheesh by blibbler · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm not much for lawsuits, but I hope the radio station that put on this stunt makes significant remedy to the lady's family

      Well at least they should give her three kids a wii.

    26. Re:sheesh by phasm42 · · Score: 5, Informative
      This article has more details; they say that a nurse had called during the contest to warn them about it:

      During the contest, a nurse called in to the station warn of the dangers of drinking too much water quickly. Her worries were dismissed by the disc jockey, The Bee reported.
      They also mention that the winner felt pretty sick afterwards as well.
      --
      "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    27. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1
      Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Trust people in charge. Think of the Milgram Experiment as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the experiment are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally listen to people they think are athority figures. And in this case, the contest holders are the athority figures.

      Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, Obey incentives. Think of the Supply-Demand Curve as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the curve are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally slip into whatever behavior is most strongly incented. And in this case, convicting the contest holders contributes to the already-strong "your gullibility and non-thought will be rewarded" meme that is tearing up our private sector.

      The switch from "buyer beware" to "seller beware" is why so many interesting places and things are no longer available to us, or cost ten times as much.

      Beyond the lawsuit, I would not be shocked to see criminal charges against the people who ran the contest. Their actions directly led to the death of another person.

      I was with you until you misused the word 'directly' for emphasis.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    28. Re:sheesh by Grimmreaper74 · · Score: 1

      Yes, your right , and that was the birth of the ogning cord... Ft. Benning GA... I know all about it...

      --
      Live life to the fullest, you only get one chance at it.
    29. Re:sheesh by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know this is irrelevant in terms of tort law, but look at the standards for criminal entrapment.

      There has to be an enticement to do a crime the person wasn't predisposed to do otherwise. This is a high standard to meet, and very few accusations entrapment are ruled in favor of.

      It does reflect something about the morality of law, that people should not be held as strictly responsible for actions that they were enticed into doing for one reason or another, that they were not predisposed to do otherwise.

      I can only assume that Ms. Strange was not someone that would regularly drink gallons of water in a short period of time.

      I fully believe in taking responsibility for your actions, but in this case the station put Ms. Strange in harm's way. A prudent man (an important concept in tort law) would have researched the possible dangers of excessive water consumption, limited the intake accordingly, had medical staff on hand, and monitored the contestants for a period afterward. The station did not act with this prudence.

      She was injured in a way that was caused by their negligence. It's a pretty clear cut case.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    30. Re:sheesh by DilbertLand · · Score: 1

      It wasn't exactly voluntary, if I understand correctly, the DJ's were forcing them to drink certain volumes in a particular time frame (like 2 minutes for each bottle initially). Now, they could have dropped out at any time, but is doesn't sound like the contestants had control over the rate of water consumption. Also, just because you know you can die from drinking too much water, it may not help. What percentage of the people reading this right now know the exact volume of water over a given timeframe will kill you? I don't. I usually hate frivolous lawsuits...but I think the family has a pretty strong and valid case in this instance.

    31. Re:sheesh by Baricom · · Score: 1

      If it were 100% certain, then there would have been no reasonable doubt, and therefore he would have been convicted.

    32. Re:sheesh by alw53 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hyponatremia is actually more common than is dehydration among people rescued from Grand Canyon hikes. If you google Carol Tufts you'll see an account of one woman who drank 10 glasses of water per day and almost died. The conventional wisdom of 8 glasses per day is dangerous nonsense.

    33. Re:sheesh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      If it were 100% certain, then there would have been no reasonable doubt, and therefore he would have been convicted.

      I'm not sure if you're being subtly sarcastic here... LOL. But just in case...

      If a jury is comprised of impartial robots, then a lack of reasonable doubt always would lead to a conviction. In this case, the jury nullified the certainty of OJ's guilt and set him free.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    34. Re:sheesh by gotem · · Score: 2, Informative

      believe it or not, there was a tv show in Mexico that regularly made alcohol drinking contest (it was like a local version of jackass), well, until someone died as you may well imagine

    35. Re:sheesh by mcrbids · · Score: 0, Troll

      Drinking too much water is a non obvious danger. But the radio station is the one who should perform the due dilligance.

      And this may be the currently accepted social expectation. That doesn't make it RIGHT, just the law, as it sits today. Why should the radio station be performing due dilligence?

      Just because we happen to know that water can be dangerous doesn't mean other people do. And certainly expecting a mother of 3 doing a 'contest' that sounds like something fun and silly to expect any danger from the contest is unreasonable.

      And I argue that expecting a radio station to know that doing a "Wee for Wii" contest (that sounds fun and silly) could result in a death is equally unreasonable.

      Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that generally people, rightly or wrongly, trust people in charge. Think of the Milgram Experiment as an extreme example. Even though the objectives of the experiment are different, it shows the same underlying principle: people generally listen to people they think are athority figures. And in this case, the contest holders are the athority figures.

      A tendency which is an unintended consequence to public education. I argue that public education indoctrinates this tendency in people. I see much more skepticism amongs home-schooled children.

      Beyond the lawsuit, I would not be shocked to see criminal charges against the people who ran the contest. Their actions directly led to the death of another person.

      Just because somebody died doesn't mean a crime was committed! If that were the case, doctors would go to jail anytime they tried their best, and honest accidents would never happen.

      I really feel for the 3 kids in this family. But I don't believe in a society and culture that expects my ass to be wiped from birth to death. My life is my own, thank you!

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    36. Re:sheesh by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      They have already lost the case.
      1. Any contest like this is a health risk.
      2. A nurse did call during the competition to warn them.
      3. They probably didn't have any medical staff watching over the competition.
      They could try the "As God as my witness I thought turkeys could fly defense." But I think they should think about writing that check now.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    37. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect a mother of 3 to know that such things are dangerous.

    38. Re:sheesh by vought · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...besides it being completely voluntary and them telling her that she should quit if she feels at risk healthwise.


      By the time she felt sick, she was liely past the threshold of easy assistance.

      Administering an emetic would not have helped when she felt the onset of a headache - there was already significant edema in her brain and cardiac muscles.

      The radio station is in big trouble here. They should have known better, especially when a kid from the commuter college up the road died from water toxicity almost exactly two years ago.

    39. Re:sheesh by hattig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      During the contest, a nurse called in to the station warn of the dangers of drinking too much water quickly. Her worries were dismissed by the disc jockey

      That fact makes the station (and the DJ) criminally negligible for the death. Well, In My Opinion as IANAL and I'm also not American, so I don't know what corporation-friendly laws you will have to counteract this.

      They were warned. They still went ahead. That's worse than manslaughter, it's not just being ignorant when you are told by a fucking nurse that it is dangerous.

      In the short term the DJ and show planning team will get the sack (and good luck getting a new job with 'killed a contestant' on your resumé), hopefully in the long term the contestants and the family of the deceased will get some kind of fair compensation for this incident.

      I must admit that the people saying she was in the wrong really should get a balanced perspective on life too ...

    40. Re:sheesh by bloodstar · · Score: 1

      The switch from "buyer beware" to "seller beware" is why so many interesting places and things are no longer available to us, or cost ten times as much.

      I'd be curious to see examples? Mind you, I'm pretty Libertarian, so I want to see and read more on things related to this.

      Beyond the lawsuit, I would not be shocked to see criminal charges against the people who ran the contest. Their actions directly led to the death of another person.

      I was with you until you misused the word 'directly' for emphasis.

      I think there is a direct causal link. The Radio Station people held a contest to drink water. Said water caused a swelling of the brain which was fatal.

      If there were more steps between the action and the death, I'd say the Radio Station people wouldn't be at risk of criminal charges, For example, if someone was driving too fast for conditions, lost control and killed someone walking down the road they could have criminal charges against them (Reckless behavior by Driving too fast for conditions)). However if said driver hit a telephone pole, which then pulled down onto a powerline, which then caused the power to go out, which made someone fall down some stairs and died from the resulting injuries. they would not be culpable for the death (Disclaimer IANAL) as there are too many steps from the act versus the cause of death.

      Directly was used with a specific point in mind, that the actions of the radio station led directly to the death of a person. The question that also will need to be asked, did the actions rise to the level of reckless?

      --
      "The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
    41. Re:sheesh by af4oo · · Score: 1

      This is a problem that most runners, especially marathoners are familiar with. They have changed the locations of water stations at Boston for years, trying to find the optimal safe locations so runners can stay hydrated, but not over hydrate.

    42. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to a world ruled by religion. Everything has to have a reason, God wouldn't allow something to happen just because. There are no accidents, only acts of God and the Devil. Of course, we can't arrest the Devil, so now we have to point fingers until we find someone who can be blamed and arrested.

    43. Re:sheesh by radarjd · · Score: 1
      Don't you know that only the person or organization with the most money is ever responsible? That is why you sue the bar for selling the drink and not the person who lets themselves get drunk and then drives home.

      Not true -- you sue the person and the bar. It's just that you won't get much out of the person relative to what you'll get from the bar. If you did only sue the bar, the bar could sue the person who drank too much and then drove. It's the wonder of joint and several liability.

      Would you prefer the alternative whereby the individual is placed into debtor's prison for being unable to pay? Or perhaps the alternative where a bar can overserve an obviously drunk patron?

    44. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple enough remedy, until someone with a previously undiagnosed glycemic condition dies from insulin shock. Any time a person enters any sort of physical contest they will experience stresses beyond what they normally experience.

      That said, anybody who holds such a contest should consult with medical professionals beforehand to ascertain the risk taken and have emergency staff (preferably EMTs) on hand who are familiar enough with symptoms of impending danger to determine when it is too much.

    45. Re:sheesh by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Wait and see. I have a pretty darn good understanding of the law. They can sue and they may win something but it won't be a lot. As for absolute limits in a contest that's just silly. No one has sucessfully sued the Guiness Book of World Records when they hurt/killed themselves trying to set a record. Several people tried this about the movie Jackass and also the TV show "Myth Busters", so far no one has won a case. In countries OTHER than the USA I have no idea how this case would be handled.

    46. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But the radio station is the one who should perform the due dilligance."
      DAMN right.

    47. Re:sheesh by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      That is absurd. Typical drivel that everyone has to be protected/informed of the risks of everything. Doing to much anything can kill you even if it is normally good for you. Should we warn people about excessive exercise (does your gym have liability if you die on the treadmill?), excessive sex?, excessive eating (McD's has been sued about too many Big Macs causing some guy to be really fat...they won!)?, etc. There is nothing to prevent her family from suing, but I suspect they won't win. I hope /. does a followup on this case (doubtful). It also is NOT to say the Station may settle out of court to prevent bad press, the risk and cost of a trial and appeals. Settling (normally) admits no liability, it's just a way to move on.

    48. Re:sheesh by SoulDrift · · Score: 1

      I would go so far as to assert that any competition where the goal is putting more of a substance into your body than your body is capable of coping with is a bad idea. Seems like revolutionary thinking, but there you are.

    49. Re:sheesh by epgandalf · · Score: 1

      The next time the radio station does this, they should use deionized water instead. That will make it much safer.

    50. Re:sheesh by pla · · Score: 1

      This is not some mysterious malady. The radio station is off the scale negligent for putting contestants in the position of potential serious harm:

      Actually, given the schedule over which they administered the water, NO ONE should have gotten enough to die before their bladders burst (or for those without brahe-ian resolve, peed themselves). They gave contestants an 8oz bottle every 15 minutes.

      Now, although I pee once every hour or two (side note - not peeing doesn't cause death from water poisoning; you die from either osmotic hydrocephalus or electrolyte-imbalance-induced cardiac arrythmia), I normally drink almost that much every morning. Between 7am and 10am every (work) day, I consume a full two liters (== 68oz == 8.5 cups) of fluid (whether diet soda or just plain water), and have yet to drop dead from it or even feel woozy.

      Now, I have no doubt the lawyers will drag three orphans into the courtroom, who will proceed to extract enormous sums of money from this radio station. But actual negligence? Sorry, this woman must have had some other condition that made her overly sensitive to too much water.

      As described, this contest shouldn't have killed anyone.

    51. Re:sheesh by Alistar · · Score: 1

      Ok, now I understand the whole too much dilution of electrolytes thing, but does this too much as easily apply to other liquids as well.

      I easily and more often than I should drink up to 8 litres of milk within a 6 hour period.
      I'm pretty addicted.
      My doctor said I should cut back due to health concerns, but that was for fat and calorie intake, not necessarily an overabundance of liquid.

      I would be curious what sort of effects or how closely too much of other liquids would have.

    52. Re:sheesh by AeroIllini · · Score: 1
      But, the radio station, as I pointed out, with minimal research should have known going in this was dangerous and not even hosted this contest.
      Or, at the very least, should have had a team of EMTs standing by, in case something like this happened. A quick shot of some electrolytes by a professional is all it would have taken to prevent the death.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    53. Re:sheesh by PapayaSF · · Score: 1
      They were warned. They still went ahead. That's worse than manslaughter

      IANAL, but I think it really is precisely involuntary manslaughter, according to this and other definitions:

      Involuntary Manslaughter. Homicides caused by recklessness or gross criminal negligence.

      Maybe there are degrees of involuntary manslaughter, but "worse than manslaughter" sounds like you mean murder, which this case is not because there was no intent to kill.

      --
      Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
    54. Re:sheesh by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      How do they know the caller had any credibility or expertise on the subject? I can call in and say I'm a nurse, too.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    55. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?

      For the same reason the families of people working in mines get to sue the mining company when the mine collapses and kills the worker. Yes, the worker signed every waiver in the world. But, the company creating the incentive for the person to do the work (ie: Paying them with money) is responsible for their safety. Under no circumstances can an employer ask an employee to risk their life for anything. The employer must do everything to ensure the safety of the employee. So, if the mine collapsed not because of a safety issue known to those in the industry, the employer is off the hook. If it collapsed because of a safety issue, well, employer pays damages (and they should).

      In the same way, the radio station provided an incentive for someone to work for them (ie: Paying them with a Wii). Now it turns out that it is well known to safety experts in the industry (Doctors) that drinking that much water will result in death. Open and shut: The radio station did not provide proper safety measures (ie: Constant monitoring of the person for symptoms of water intoxication by a Doctor, I don't know how this is done, but if it is impossible, then the contest should simply not have existed due to safety complications) and therefore is liable.

      For a more personal example, think about it this way: When driving, there exists the possibility that a catastrophic collision could cause your car to set on fire. If the collision was in such an unusual manner that it would be unknown to the company selling the vehicle, it is assumed you knew there was a minimal risk that this could happen and the company doesn't pay. However, if the vehicle is designed in a way that puts unusual risk of immolation to the passengers past what normal risks normal collisions present to them, it's a Pinto and the maker rightfully pays up for liability.

      This is a lot like eating contests. Professionally run ones always have physicians monitoring the health of the fatties, and the physician always gets the last word on whether they continue their stupidity or not.

      (I assume there were no doctors present at this contest because no sane doctor would have allowed this contest to continue past the first few bottles of water.)

    56. Re:sheesh by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's worse than manslaughter, it's not just being ignorant when you are told by a fucking nurse that it is dangerous.

      The nurse doesn't even need to be that specialized - any kind of nurse would probably do.

    57. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This way of thinking is why the milgram expirement works so well. You think it's the job of "the people in charge" to look out for everyone else. Which leads back to why you trust the people in charge.

      The fact of the matter is that NO ONE ON EARTH has your best interests at heart. So when they tell you to do something IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CONSIDER THE CONSEQUENCES.

      Yes, I'm yelling. Deal with it.

      I get so tired of the instant response to anything like this being "sue". How about, instead of more lawsuits, you start a public awareness campaign on the dangers of drinking water? Oh, right, no money in that.

      People need to take responsibility for their own actions. You drink so much water that it poisons you, THAT IS YOUR FAULT. I don't care if someone did tell you to drink it.

      Let me use an example you heard when you were 5. If all your friends [did x] would you [do x]?

      Now to bring it into reality. If a radio DJ told you to drink water till you died, would you? And more importantly, is he to blame for your death?

      I'll give you a hint. The answer is no and if you think otherwise you are a threat to the life and liberty of all other people.

    58. Re:sheesh by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing: Guinness doesn't run around trying to get people to do dangerous things to make the book. The people who get in the Guinness book tend to be people who want to do so and contact Guinness so that they can go through the appropriate hoops for inclusion.

      As for Jackass and Mythbusters, well, those shows feature people who make their own calls and, for the most part, make up their own stunts. In addition, they actually do have insurance and the appropriate waivers in place. As for people copying what they might do on Jackass and similar shows, well, the warnings provided are reasonable and people who SEE other people get hurt (often badly) and still want to do the stunts really are just plain stupid.

      All this radio station would have had to do is talk to a competent internal medicine physician before the contest, who would have told them that the thing was a lousy idea - a VERY reasonable precaution before subjecting anyone to a contest in which the goal is to deny natural body functions for a stunt. If they didn't do so, then they were negligent. If they did so, were told it was a bad idea, and still went ahead without medical supervision (and post-contest examinations including labs) then they were willfully negligent. Either way, the station deserves to pay for this mistake.

    59. Re:sheesh by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I was with you until you misused the word 'directly' for emphasis.

      If it's misused, how does one properly "directly" kill someone?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    60. Re:sheesh by feepness · · Score: 1

      I'm also not American, so I don't know what corporation-friendly laws you will have to counteract this.

      Man, we are the most sue-happy country on the planet. Corporations here tremble about stuff like this.

    61. Re:sheesh by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      It is the law. It's called involuntary manslaughter.

      Look it up dumbfuck:

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

      Your life is your own - until you fuck with someone else's by being a negligent dumbfuck. Then - we get to kill you.

    62. Re:sheesh by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Secular law. Your fucking stupidity gets someone killed - you get to pay. So shut the fuck up says this athiest.

    63. Re:sheesh by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      There is no reason to believe that water drinking contests are any more risky than bobbing for apples, pie eating contests, pinnatas, bungie jumping, or any other generally safe activity that occasionally kills someone (a couple people die every year from all those activies... probably more so than drinking too much water).

      Some activities have an inherent risk. Thanks to frivilous lawsuits, and people like you who help spread the safety paranoia, the list of fun things people can do is rapidly diminishing. Our concepts of risk and responsiblity are all out of whack, and the oppressive restrictions that are placed on us far outweight the extremly unlikely dangers of things like this.

      One example - Cities used to often have a municipal sledding hill, where people could go to and sled. My friends and I would go in the evening after the kiddies left, and have a good time doing all kinds of dangerous and stupid stunts down the sledding hill. Of course, that is virtually impossible to do nowadays. Most cities are closing off their sledding hills (because the liability is too high), and those who don't now have posted times the place is open, when the hill is strictly supervised, and you can't sled after the kiddies leave. Why is the fun being ruined? Because safety paranoid people like you want us all to live in your nightmare world where any risky behavior is not allowed!

      Stop ruining everyone's fun! A water drinking contest? Who cares! If the choice is between a person dying of water poisioning every year or so, and living in the nightmare totalitarian safety world where nothing remotely dangerous is allowed, I will gladly take the risk, thank you! Move out to your gated community in the suburbs, use your germ-fighting-soap, don't let your kids go trick or treating and don't buy them a chemistry set, and leave the rest of us alone!

    64. Re:sheesh by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      I keep warning the Canadian government that hockey is dangerous... and every year the government of Canada sponsers youth hockey, resulting in the inevitable accidental death of several children, EVERY YEAR!!! I don't know what sort of corporation-friendly laws let the Hockey-Industrial complex promote this sort of dangerous behavior to our children. We expect those ruthless Americans who hate their children to allow activities like hockey to continue... but in Canada? In Europe?

      Certainly the leaders of Canada, as well as most of Europe, who have GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES HOCKEY PROGRAMS need to be thrown in jail! Everyone who doesn't think promoting hockey is a crime is a brainwashed zombie listening to the propoganda and lies that are promoted by the Puck industry!

    65. Re:sheesh by DeathElk · · Score: 1
      • A quick shot of some electrolytes by a professional is all it would have taken to prevent the death

      Not necessarily. Other complications can arise such as kidney failure. Indeed, symptoms may not occur until later - in this case, the woman was found later, at home, after leaving work complaining of headaches.

      The stunt was not researched and totally irresponsible.

    66. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1
      If it's misused, how does one properly "directly" kill someone?

      Direct kill: *blam!*
      Indirect kill: "Hey, want to drink this? It might hurt you. But go for it if you're feelin' lucky."

      Notice the element of consent?

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    67. Re:sheesh by n0nsensical · · Score: 1

      well if you were paying the least bit of attention you'd realize it wasn't JUST 8 oz bottles they drank; there were larger bottles given as well and as far as I know it's not been reported exactly how big they were, so both you and I and everyone else here have no idea how much water she drank so why don't you stop judging until you find out?

    68. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1
      I think there is a direct causal link. The Radio Station people held a contest to drink water. Said water caused a swelling of the brain which was fatal.

      Yes, and there is a direct causal link between my leaving work five minutes later, and another person thereby merging into traffic two seconds later, and subsequently getting rear-ended by a Mack truck. That is not, or at least should not, be the legal pivot point...

      A more relevant pivot point would be the presence or absence of consent. The other driver in my example has consented to the situation even though it was dangerous. Same for the women who drank too much water. I think this is what the other /. commenters were getting at: the issue is not who caused her death; the issue is whether her consent was adequately informed.

      This distinction is crystal clear in the medical field. A surgeon often 'directly' causes the death of patient, but that's a risk that the patient consented to.

      If there were more steps between the action and the death, I'd say the Radio Station people wouldn't be at risk of criminal charges

      If you try to define or defend a precise number of steps (between action and death) in order to qualify as "directly killed", you'll see the difficulty.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    69. Re:sheesh by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      I very much doubt there will be a next time!

    70. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1
      She was injured in a way that was caused by their negligence. It's a pretty clear cut case.

      It is equally clear cut that her injury was due to her negligent but nevertheless sober consumption of too much water.

      That the radio station tempted her to do so is a secondary matter. I could've lured my boyfriend to run across a busy street to meet me, and if he gets hit by a car, well...

      In any event, this whole conversation comes down to who you think should be responsible for protecting the buyer: should it be the seller (the radio station) or should it be the buyer (the woman)?

      There are certainly a lot of tradeoffs involved. In my view, the most compelling tradeoff is the most far-reaching one: the long-term effect of creating a "you will be protected and even rewarded for not thinking" incentive. Of course, your society's mileage may vary.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    71. Re:sheesh by inviolet · · Score: 1
      It is the law. It's called involuntary manslaughter.

      Look it up dumbfuck:

      Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but we are not arguing over what is the current law. We are arguing over what the law ought to be.

      But please, don't let that little wrinkle interfere with the rush of satisfaction you get from castigating your brethren.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    72. Re:sheesh by vermox · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link to that? I live in Mexico and never heard anything about someone dying in an TV show alcohol drinking contest, and google didn't return anything either, sounds like just another urban legend to me (the TV show related death, no the fact that you can die from alcohol poisoning ;)

      --
      --- /dev/null
    73. Re:sheesh by pla · · Score: 1

      so why don't you stop judging until you find out?

      I didn't consider my previous post a "judgement". Just a statement to the effect that the radio station at least took some care in how they conducted the contest. As you correctly point out, however, they apparently grew impatient as time wore on and they still had more than one contestant. My error. However...

      If I had "judged" this situation, I'd say they should all die... Every contestant and the DJs. Contests like this exist solely to prove that you can buy anything - In this case, many peoples' dignity and one woman's life cost $500, the price of a Nintendo Wii. Neither side should feel proud of participating in such a sad, sad commentary on American life. And we don't even get the bonus of "Darwin wins - Fatality!", because everyone but this woman will continue competing with the rest of us for oxygen.



      So it goes. Moral of the story, people should take the time to learn how to properly operate the single most important (to them) machine on the planet - Their own bodies. And she worked in the medical field? Sorry, just can't feel the sympathy welling up, here. Perhaps if you played some sad violin music...

    74. Re:sheesh by hattig · · Score: 1
      How do they know the caller had any credibility or expertise on the subject? I can call in and say I'm a nurse, too.


      They can use this thing called the Internet to see if what the nurse said is true.

      Then they can act on it.

      To blatantly ignore the call, and not even do a minor bit of research on it, is negligence of the highest order.
    75. Re:sheesh by akohler · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with "frivolous" lawsuits, but we do have courts for a reason. The test for negligence isn't whether the man on the street would be expected to know something, but whether a "reasonable" person would be. The radio station was obviously negligent, but it would be a matter of interpretation as to just how negligent they were.

      This subject has been covered in the popular media, television shows , and numerous cable science shows, as well as being explained in high school biology for at least 15 years (at least in my class). The fact they the radio station did no research, consulted no health care professionals, and did not inform the participants of any health risks, much less death, makes them legally negligent and pretty dumb, in my estimation.

      --
      "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
    76. Re:sheesh by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      oh really?

      "Just because somebody died doesn't mean a crime was committed! If that were the case, doctors would go to jail anytime they tried their best, and honest accidents would never happen."

      Doesn't sound like "ought to be" - sounds more like a debate on whether a crime was commited! Gosh - where could I possibly have gotten that idea? But don't let that deprive you of making snarky self-serving comments.

    77. Re:sheesh by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1
      Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?

      They both are, really, at least when it comes to morality/ethics. From what I've read many employees at the radio station seem to have been aware that there was at least some danger involved. They're negligent for not finding out more precisely what the dangers were.

    78. Re:sheesh by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Water drinking contests are far more dangerous than all of the things you named. If you drink over a certain amount in a cetain timeframe, the electrolytes in your body get too dilluted and you die. It happens on college campuses all the time.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    79. Re:sheesh by GigsVT · · Score: 2

      You can't draw a straight parallel between this and commerce.

      Look at the TV show "Fear Factor"... they go to great pains to ensure that the contestant are in no real danger. They still fuck up sometimes, but most of the time there's no real risk of injury.

      Now, many of their stunts are of the sort like "walk across this beam 500 feet in the air". The people are wearing safety harnesses, of course.

      If the Fear Factor staff forgot to tie the other end of the safety harness to something, and the person fell to their death, you bet your ass they would be liable. The person made a sober decision to walk out on the ledge, but they were under the impression that the people challenging them to do so had taken their safety into account.

      The key in tort law was that there was a negligent omission or action that a prudent person could easily forsee causing injury. It's not about thoughtless irresponsibility. It's about someone implicitly or explicitly taking responsibiilty for your protection, and then failing to provide the protection you trusted them to provide.

      I'm not really sure what part of this you have a problem with. Was it because it was an omission instead of an action? Do you think negligent omission shouldn't be a legal cause of action? If your doctor sews up a surgical towel inside of you, that's a negligent omission. Should that not be actionable as well?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    80. Re:sheesh by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      And yet, it doesn't surprise me at all. The DJ most likely assumed that someone else had already checked it out. Besides, for him to stop the contest or put it on hold while he researched what the nurse had said would be to put his job on the line.

      It's really amazing what people will do when an authority figure tells them it's OK. When I first read about the Milgram experiment I was astonished. People were willing to seemingly shock a stranger to death simply because another stranger who was allegedly an authority figure told them to do so.

      As Americans I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that we're individual human beings first and employees second. We have a right and a responsibility to speak up when something wrong is happening.

    81. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well at least they should give her three kids a wii.

      What are you, crazy?! They'd better get a spare wiimote and at least 2 games with it.

    82. Re:sheesh by Jimmy_B · · Score: 1
      No, not totally safe. Too much gatorade (high sugar content) can kill insulin-dependent diabetics too. In fact, I'd argue that that change would be statistically more likely to cause deaths and serious injury in this type of competition.
      You're wrong about that. Speaking as a type 1 diabetic, I can tell you that anyone with diabetes would have enough training and warnings from their own doctor that they wouldn't enter such a competition, and anyone who *didn't* know they had diabetes would be able to handle it. And furthermore, high blood sugar causes obvious, call-a-doctor-NOW symptoms long before it becomes life threatening. Switching to gatorade would have made the competition safe.
    83. Re:sheesh by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      See thats the problem, "deserves" has nothing to do with what the law says. I'll bet dollars to donuts the station got waivers. If I tell you I'm going to have a contest where you have to abuse your body in some way I'm damn sure going to have a waiver. If they didn't get ones from the contestants they were damned stupid. It was unfortunate someone got hurt but she COULD have stopped but her own free will caused her to NOT stop. So she has some culpability as well.

    84. Re:sheesh by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      And, no radio station in the world would get away with having contestants drink alcohol in a similar fashion, waivers and warnings or not.

      1 dead, 5 in intensive care, from a vodka drinking contest in Russia, 2003.

    85. Re:sheesh by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Where's the line, though? If a radio station held a contest to see who could go the longest without eating or drinking, would a simple waiver be enough to indemnify them?

      I guess without a judge and/or jury, we can't be sure of the legal consequences, but I think it's easy to agree that the radio station exercised piss-poor (sorry) judgement and that such contests shouldn't be encouraged, waivers or not. Again, consulting a doctor should have been the station management's first consideration. The fact that they didn't, to me at least, would seem to indicate a sort of willful ignorance that shouldn't be tolerated.

    86. Re:sheesh by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Dunno about that.
      I mean, she didn't win, did she? Rules are rules. Can't go expecting people to change the game just because _your_ mum died in a hideously stupid way through no fault of anyone but herself.

      Seriously though, who the fuck doesn't know about water poisoning? Not seen the adverts on TV about ecstasy killing through over-water consumption?? Or the news reports where they run down exactly how much water can be fatal, and how to avoid the dangers? Or maybe, just maybe, were you in school for the days your biology teacher went into how water affects the human body, why we need i, what happens if we've too much?

      Ignorance is no defence. Especially not since she was told.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
    87. Re:sheesh by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      If a radio DJ told you to drink water till you died, would you? And more importantly, is he to blame for your death?" If a radio DJ told you to drink water until you won a Wii and then you later died because you didn't know that drinking too much water could kill you is he to blame for your death ?

      I'll give you a hint, yes he most probably is because before he sets up any competitions where he gets people to drink a lot of water a reasonable person would expect that he had checked out whether that was a safe thing to do or not.

      It's not like this woman had some kind of weird medical condition or unusual allergy to water, if you made anyone drink a similar amount of water then they are likely to die or suffer very severe consequences too.

      If a radio DJ ran a competition to get people to drink some South American poison that he knew would kill them once they'd drunk 2 litres of it but he told them it was perfectly safe to drink then it would be a clear case of murder. The only difference in this case is that he hadn't bothered to find out if the liquid he was using was poisonous or not.
    88. Re:sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree that the radio station DJs and the station management are in deep shit, but I thought you should know that Chico State is not a commuter college, it's a full-blown CSU and the town of Chico is nearly 90 miles "up the road" and over the FM radio/TV horizon.

      KDNDs audio link is pretty ironic. http://wmc1.liquidviewer.net/kdnd The DJs have been suspended, read this

    89. Re:sheesh by gotem · · Score: 1

      remember 'No te Equivoques' with Tony Dalton? here's a link: http://www.luzye.net/?p=13 (spanish)

    90. Re:sheesh by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      good luck getting a new job with 'killed a contestant' on your resumé)
      It would be cool if he was applying to be a Ninja assassin or something though. "Look, I am so 1337 that I can kill people by MANIPULATING RADIO WAVES!"
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    91. Re:sheesh by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Too much gatorade (high sugar content) can kill insulin-dependent diabetics too.
      Yes, but the likelihood of drinking too much gatorade is negligible, as it takes like cat piss.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    92. Re:sheesh by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Probably safer to drink the alcohol. One of the symptoms that you've consumed dangerous levels of water is that you feel thirsty.

      On the other hand, most people are well aware of what they feel like when they have had too much alcohol. Also, the body tends to reject overconsumption of alcohol, as evidenced by the drunken sorority girl puking all over your shoes. The symptoms of alcohol overconsumption are also well-known, so somebody would have probably had the decency to call 911. Further, the contestants would likely have had to spend a long time at the radio station afterwards... don't want a bunch of drunkards on the road... where somebody could watch the contestants and call 911 if they become unresponsive.

      Still a bad idea, but maybe a little safer. Personally, I would not enter any such contest. Not even competitive eating.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    93. Re:sheesh by ubergenius · · Score: 1

      The main problem is our culture: Waivers are so common-place nowadays, that most people don't even consider them as any measure of warning, but rather just "the corporation covering their asses".

      A few years back, a local amusement park started having people sign waivers to enter the park. The explanation was that, a few weeks prior, an accident had occurred at an amusement park in another state, and a lawsuit ensued, and the park was just trying to protect itself. Seemed reasonable to me, so I signed, went in, and had a good time.

      This kind of business practice of "waiving every activity to prevent lawsuits" has become so ubiquitous, that I wouldn't even think twice if I was asked to sign a liability waiver for entering a library. Don't get me wrong, I'd READ the waiver, of course, to look for anything overly suspicious, but for the most part, these kinds of waivers are no longer a means for considering potential danger.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    94. Re:sheesh by LokiSteve · · Score: 1

      She lived in the area and should have also known better.

      --
      END OF LINE.
    95. Re:sheesh by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Typical drivel that everyone has to be protected/informed of the risks of everything.

      Water intoxication isn't "everything". It's a somewhat obscure, but very real danger that isn't immediately obvious to someone who doesn't have a basic understanding of cell physiology. Should we warn people about excessive exercise (does your gym have liability if you die on the treadmill?), excessive sex?,

      Usually, the human body has pretty good safeguards in place. If you want to kill yourself by excessive exercise/sex, you either need to have a pre-existing medical condition, or be in extremely good physical shape. excessive eating (McD's has been sued about too many Big Macs causing some guy to be really fat...they won!)? That should be obvious even to the dullest knife in the drawer. However, if McD advertised their products as being completely harmless in unlimited quantities (much like the tobacco industry did/does), that's another can of worms.

    96. Re:sheesh by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      How exactly did you come by the knowledge of what cat piss tastes like?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    97. Re:sheesh by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      A waiver won't save them if they were negligent. If I had you sign a waiver stating that I was going to murder you, you sign giving your consent, then I go ahead and shoot you - am I legally absolved of any crime? Hell no. A waiver can never override any laws already in place.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    98. Re:sheesh by FallLine · · Score: 1
      You're wrong about that. Speaking as a type 1 diabetic, I can tell you that anyone with diabetes would have enough training and warnings from their own doctor that they wouldn't enter such a competition, and anyone who *didn't* know they had diabetes would be able to handle it. And furthermore, high blood sugar causes obvious, call-a-doctor-NOW symptoms long before it becomes life threatening. Switching to gatorade would have made the competition safe.
      Speaking as someone that has worked with many hundreds diabetics and clinicians, I can tell you that a very significant number IDDMs have a very poor idea of the amount of sugar/carbs in the food they eat regularly even. This is particularly true in extreme circumstances (like trying to drink as much of something as possible) and tends to be aggrivated by reduced mental capacity as BG levels rise. Not all diabetics have good and attentive doctors (esp. GPs) & educators and not all diabetics are responsible (or have responsible parents). I've literally met some IDDMs that think nothing of drinking several liters of coke a day even after very serious incidents (admittedly most of these were poor/uneducated). That roughly 1800 diabetics die of diagnosed DKA each year in the US alone suggests that many are not as well educated or as well disciplined as you would like to believe. Many more may also place themselves in harms-way as a direct result of being hyperglycemic (e.g., car crash) and thus not be diagnosed accordingly.

      Furthermore, even if the person appreciates the risk to some degree, they may over-compensate with insulin (esp. pump users... causing hypoglycemia) or even under-compensate (their pump, for instance, can occlude without their being aware of it).
    99. Re:sheesh by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      Seriously though, who the fuck doesn't know about water poisoning?

      Most people don't.

      Not seen the adverts on TV about ecstasy killing through over-water consumption??

      No, not really. I'm not sure what channels you've been watching, but on the ones I've seen (Fox, Food network, Sci-Fi, ABC a few times), no such commercials have aired. The ones I've seen are general "drugs are bad, don't do them. Pot will lead to ecstasy use and cocaine, just you wait and see."

      Or the news reports where they run down exactly how much water can be fatal, and how to avoid the dangers?

      The only reason I remember was I recalled hearing of a college student who died from drinking too much water as a frat stunt. It was one of the stupidest things I'd heard, so it stuck with me. Again though, it's not something that's in the news a lot, and really only made for a "slow news day" story.

      Or maybe, just maybe, were you in school for the days your biology teacher went into how water affects the human body, why we need i, what happens if we've too much?

      Almost no one over the age of 30 remembers a single thing from their high school biology class.

      Both the woman and the station are liable. Since the station was hosting the competition, they had the responsibility of doing due diligence. Especially since the DJ was warned this was a hazardous activity and the woman was not.

    100. Re:sheesh by vermox · · Score: 1

      wow, it's amazing that the note didn't made it to prime-time news here... Actually it's not that amazing taking into account that the TV Network behind that show has a vast amount of media handling power.

      Thanks for the link, I was able to find a few more articles discussing that with the information there (nothing in any "big" newspaper though) =/

      --
      --- /dev/null
    101. Re:sheesh by Wizard+Drongo · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Fair comment if the DJ was warned but didn't pass on the warning. Didn't realise the US tv people don't show them commercials. Over here there was a spate of ecstasy deaths a while back and it's become like a well-known thing now in the UK. Wouldn't know about the data retention thing for the over-30's with regards biology classes, since I'm not over 30 yet.

      --
      The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
  5. gawd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i read about this over 24 hours ago on mainstream news sites...

    1. Re:gawd... by general+scruff · · Score: 1

      Amazing... And you have had all that time to come up with something useful to add to this conversation, and yet all you can say is "Oh yeah, I heard this already..."

      --
      As a rule, I never trust dark brown ketchup.
    2. Re:gawd... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Then the question becomes:

      Why didn't you submit it then so we could all enjoy fresh news?

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  6. They should have... by VAXcat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Interviewed the winner and asked him or her how they felt about owning the Death WII.

    --
    There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    1. Re:They should have... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      Maybe the winners will end up killing someone with a wiimote accident, cuz clearly the console is cursed. Btw, I still think this is insane. The body should just pass any water it doesn't need straight to the bladder. At a laser tag lockin all night, I sweated probably a gallon and drank at least a gallon of water and didn't have to pee all night so obviously it's the amount at a given time, not the overall amount. Whenever I'm fully hydrated and haven't sweat and all my glands are full enough, I usually just gotta go in like ten minutes if I drink a lot. You'd think it would just stay in your stomach if your bladder was full and you were holding it but apparently it somehow goes somewhere else and kills you. I still think that's a little iffy because it just doesn't make sense. You'd have to drink more water than your body can physically hold because your electrolyte density in your brain was diffused enough that you actually died.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    2. Re:They should have... by sokoban · · Score: 5, Funny

      Btw, I still think this is insane. The body should just pass any water it doesn't need straight to the bladder. Maybe you should submit a bug report or take this issue up with the dev team.
      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
    3. Re:They should have... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The bladder and stomach aren't connected directly, the body retrieves all the water it can and in this case that was too much water, diluting the blood too much and killing the body. The bladder wasn't even reached at that point (even though the bladder can burst and that can end with death as well).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:They should have... by Cecil · · Score: 1

      The body should just pass any water it doesn't need straight to the bladder.

      It does. Unfortunately it also dissolves any sodium it comes into contact with along the way, which then gets urinated out of your body. Sodium is incredibly important for your body to function, and you're rinsing out the small supply the body is able to keep, and you're not replacing it. Your body expects to get most of its water from food, which contains lots of sodium to replenish your supplies.

      Maybe now would be a good time to dismiss the "8 glasses of water a day" myth as well. That's part of a quote from a doctor, who was explaining how much water an average person should take in in a day... but he was including food, which is usually 50-75% water. A glass or two of water is more than enough. More than that is dangerous.

    5. Re:They should have... by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      "Btw, I still think this is insane. The body should just pass any water it doesn't need straight to the bladder":

      Yes indeed. If only this woman had the sense to try to reason with the laws of physics, she'd still be alive today.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    6. Re:They should have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm sure she'll take up that design flaw with her maker now that we know of it!

      and/or:

      And now she's dead, and can't reproduce (more). Now if she had the favorable trait "can pass excess water from stomach to bladder" she would have been naturally selected to live for another chance to have kids. Clear example of how evolution could happen.

    7. Re:They should have... by Lattitude · · Score: 1

      His answer: "I feel a bit like a wiitard..."

    8. Re:They should have... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Sorry the dev team was disbanded long ago as the model has been deprecated. We've found the source code, but it's a giant mess of For-Next loops and GoTo's and we can't read the documentation as it's in an earlier version of Word. You're on you own for support.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:They should have... by mdboyd · · Score: 1
      Sorry the dev team was disbanded long ago as the model has been deprecated. We've found the source code, but it's a giant mess of For-Next loops and GoTo's and we can't read the documentation as it's in an earlier version of Word. You're on you own for support.


      God must be outsourcing
    10. Re:They should have... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

      we'll see who has the last laugh when I read the digestive system 1.1 update change log :-P I still don't see how I'm still alive if I drank pure water all night while sweating like crazy. There were actually salt crystals all over my eyelashes and face and stuff and I didn't take in any electrolytes at all, all night. Though I am usually very dehydrated so maybe I absorbed the water out of my blood really fast cuz everything needed it...but then I'm still short on a massive amount of electrolytes. So with my electrolytes plummeting and my pure water intake skyrocketing and she was only drinking, not sweating, I don't see how that could possibly be the cause of death if I'm still alive. I think she just didn't the Wii so she killed herself and it's a coverup or conspiracy to shut down the radio station.

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    11. Re:They should have... by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Maybe you should submit a bug report or take this issue up with the dev team. We looked into it, but it's a big heap of flying spaghetti code. Whoever designed it wasn't very intelligent.
    12. Re:They should have... by Ernesto+Alvarez · · Score: 1

      God must be outsourcing


      Nah, it's his own code, since we know humans are still in 1.0 (at least some people are saying that). He never passed software engineering because he could never design anything properly (he's not too intelligent, you see).
    13. Re:They should have... by fizzup · · Score: 1

      The problem really has to do with the rate of consumption. If you consume water faster than it can be excreted to the bladder, then you will start to suffer from hyponatremia. This can cause individual cells to swell, due to osmotic pressure accross the cell membrane. If enough cells succumb, then organs or the nervous system can fail.

    14. Re:They should have... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to the big Bugzilla in the sky? Preferablly with me not having to die to submit change requests and bug fixes? =)

    15. Re:They should have... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      And while we're at it, who decided to put the waste dump so close to the recreational facility?

  7. Dumb contest, stupid people... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1, Troll

    They should've have the contestants hold their breath so it would be obvious when they turned blue that something was wrong. I don't think that would change the outcome of the contest.

  8. Bizarre by Skyshadow · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I can't believe that nobody involved in this event had misgivings about this, especially since just a couple of years ago a kid at Chico State died of the same thing (which got all sorts of press around California at the time).

    What a stupid thing to have happen. You've got to feel for her family, especially with all the reports saying she was doing it for her kids -- having your mom die trying to get you some stupid video game system would be a shitty thing to live with. I hope they sue this radio station and the individuals involved into the poorhouse...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Bizarre by wizzard2k · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing when I heard this on the radio. You'd think people around here would have learned from that. I mean, it was a BIG deal at the time.

    2. Re:Bizarre by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      Before I comment, if the parent is Flamebait there isn't a post on /. that isn't. That said...

      It's hard to make out but it sounds like both the station and the contestants were not fully aware of the danger of water poisening. It may be that there was a clause in the waiver concerning it, but it really doesn't appear that it was taken seriously.

      Any event where there is potential for a predictable health risk should have medical aid on-site in case of emergency.

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
  9. Hold your wee for a wii... by Jesselnz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who the hell came up with that name? See kids, this is why crack is illegal.

    1. Re:Hold your wee for a wii... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, who came up with "Breezy Badger" or "Dapper Drake"?

    2. Re:Hold your wee for a wii... by Gwyndolen · · Score: 1

      From living in the Sacramento area and *occasionally* tuning into that radio station, it's right in line with their other stunt names.

    3. Re:Hold your wee for a wii... by sharkey · · Score: 1

      I thought he was talking about Nintendo.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  10. In Soviet Russia ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... the government kills the competition.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  11. As God is my witness... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:As God is my witness... by hal2814 · · Score: 1

      So who else is old enough to get the joke without clicking the link? Anyone? Man I loved that show.

    2. Re:As God is my witness... by BVD · · Score: 1

      At least two of us. Dang, that was funny.

    3. Re:As God is my witness... by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Here's the best part alone:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZByndN_ffyw

    4. Re:As God is my witness... by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Just be careful of the Thought Police though - they are everywhere...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  12. What can you say? by arcite · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hilariously tragic?

    1. Re:What can you say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious? WTF is even remotely funny about this?

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

  13. In other news... by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, a Kansas City man died after slipping in pools of urine surrounding PS3 boxes at a local Best Buy.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    1. Re:In other news... by syousef · · Score: 1

      That happened near you too? Someone didn't hold down the shift key when their Sony music CD and now they want revenge? So they got a friend to distract the owner at Best Buy, and filled out an ahem complaint form.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  14. Drank more than 8oz by chiefer · · Score: 0

    The woman must have drank way more than "8oz of water every 15 minutes." 8oz x 4 = 32oz in 1 hour. The average person with 2 healthy kidneys "can excrete about 1.5 litres (0.39 gallons) of water per hour at maximum filtration (other studies find the limit to be as little as 0.9L/h (0.24 gal). Source= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication. Even at the low end of the spectrum, she would have been borderline "OK" unless she had a severe sodium deficiency.

    1. Re:Drank more than 8oz by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      FTA:

      "An Associated Press interview with another contestant, named James Ybarra, claimed that contestants were initially given eight ounce bottles of water to drink every fifteen minutes, with larger bottles being used once contestants began to drop out"

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    2. Re:Drank more than 8oz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bolded the wrong section but the relevant part of teh article is still there.

    3. Re:Drank more than 8oz by x2A · · Score: 1

      The kidneys perhaps wouldn't have been working at full capacity due to full bladder. There is the body salts issue, and anything in the water (chlorine, floride, etc) that are pretty bad for you to consume. If she wasn't in the best health to begin with, all of these combined could screw things up... as we've seen.

      She got it the worst, but other contestants also had problems and took a while to recover.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Drank more than 8oz by faraway · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When I began my Lithium treatment, I experienced my first encounter with what I call "Lithium Thirst". Extreme unquenchable thirst - until you've experienced Lithium Thirst, you haven't experienced thirst. I'd easily go through at least 2-4L in an hour sometimes. What you have to remember is that as your body's sodium level drops (due to the water) your body starts to retain as much liquid/etc as possible to "retain" the sodium, which only screws the body up more as more water gets added. A healthy salt intake is really needed. With Lithium a healthy salt intake is really important as it aids in removing the element from your body.

  15. Do you have no shame Skuttle? by jdwclemson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    That is the most deceptive headline you have successfully posted ever. This death could not have less to do with the Wii. It is ONLY about a radio station that tried an irresponsible stunt, and a lady who put her own health at risk to win a competition. The Wii is only related in name, but has ZERO relevance to her death. Stop trying to decieve people and learn to post honestly for once. Thanks!

    1. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

      The death is related to the Wii in that a lady died by putting her life in danger for a Wii console, so it has a LOT of relevance to her death. Would she have died if the station was giving out tickets to a concert as a prize? No, because she did it to get a Wii for her kids.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    2. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you're wrong. It IS related. It was the prize of the contest. The woman would NOT have been there if it wasn't a Wii, she'd have been somewhere else.

      "But it could have been any prize."

      Not for this woman. She (or most other people) probably wouldn't have wanted just any prize badly enough. Nobody would ingest enough water to kill them to win a toaster.

      "It could have been anyone."

      Sure it could have. But it wasn't.

      The fact the matter is that the headline is correct. It IS Wii-related. They did not try to make it sound like the Wii was involved in the competition, only that it was related to it. And it is.

      If it was related to any other product, they'd have put that product in the headline, and you probably wouldn't have screamed about it. You are only mad because the Wii is 'in' right now.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    3. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      Yes, obviously the fact that the hype over the Wii has reached such a level that people are willing to kill themselves to get one is not at all interesting or relevant. I suppose now you're going to tell us that the riots and violence surrounding the PS3's launch day had nothing to with it either, right?

      Rob

    4. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Would she have died if the station was giving out tickets to a concert as a prize? No, because she did it to get a Wii for her kids.

      Yes, she would have died if it had been tickets, and she had had to drink water to win the tickets for her kids. What's so special about the prize being a console? Any prize could have done it.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      That is the most deceptive headline you have successfully posted ever.

      Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly were the first successful echo chamber journalists. Inflammatory rhetoric gets you ad dollars, so there's no reason avoid sullying the credibility of online journalism when it's profitable to lower your standards. Skuttle is an idiot, but the /. editors are the real culprits.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    6. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      The fact the matter is that the headline is correct.

      Was she really killed?

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    7. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by x2A · · Score: 1

      The title says "Killed In Wii-Related Competition" - which is 100% correct. She died, in a wii-related competition. What the hell's deceptive about that?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by x2A · · Score: 1

      So do you think the press should have covered up what the prize was?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    9. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Kill: "to cause the death of"

      Yes.

      kill != murder.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    10. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      So do you think the press should have covered up what the prize was?

      Wha...? Where did I say the prize shouldn't be mentioned? The point is that exactly what the prize was had nothing to do with why the accident occurred.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    11. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by msaver · · Score: 1

      The OP wasn't saying that the headline was technically incorrect. He was saying that the headline is ambiguous and misleading. Sure, if the prize was something other than a Wii she may not have entered. The point is, a radio station asked listeners to enter a contest that is potentially deadly. The fact that the prize is appealing to many nerds doesn't qualify this as news.

      But I didn't reply to correct one small quibble. Your post made me giggle a bit.

      I love how you begin your post with an apology, and then inform the OP that he is incorrect. It's almost as if you are giving fair warning for the air-tight logical analysis which is to follow.

      Then, throwing would-be critics a nasty curveball, you pre-empt what you *know* to be their rebuttals (such as "But it could have been any prize" and "It could have been anyone"). Your responses are as insightful as they are articulate.

      I love your penultimate paragraph, which I can quote in-line (thanks to your clever two-line-paragraph-style). You write "The fact the matter is that the headline is correct. It IS Wii-related. They did not try to make it sound like the Wii was involved in the competition, only that it was related to it. And it is." You *emphatically* point out that the headline is not technically lying! Of course, the OP was saying that the headline is confusing and that this story hardly qualifies for posting on a technology news site, but the way you make your point is so cute!

      And in the final paragraph we find a real gem. You see through his exterior and into his soul. He is just a Nintendo fanboy, defending his favorite new toy. Err wait, I mean he's a Wii-hater who can't stand immediate posting of anything a Slashdot editor finds on the net with 'Wii' in it. Yeah, that's right.

    12. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Yes, she would have died if it had been tickets, and she had had to drink water to win the tickets for her kids. What's so special about the prize being a console? Any prize could have done it.

      It's not really that special, but the reason why this article was posted on slashdot is because it's Wii related. If the competition awarded something else, it wouldn't be on slashdot. That's why Skuttle added that information in the title. I highly doubt he was trying to imply that the woman's death was directly caused by the Wii.

    13. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It's not false or a lie, but it could be construed as misleading, because it's not very informative. What you don't say is often just as important as what you do say.

        If I had just read that headline and none of the summary and/or story, I would probably imagine that there was a competition the involved playing the Wii, and someone was flailing around and accidentally hit this woman in the side of the head or something. Even if the headline wasn't intentionally meant to make the Wii sound dangerous, it's not beyond the realm of possibility to think that someone might read it as such.

      A more useful, and less ambiguous title would be along the lines of "Woman competing for a Nintendo Wii killed by water intoxication." It's much more clear and informative. Plus I'd imagine the fact that plain old water can be toxic is actually more interesting to most people than the fact that she was trying to win a Nintendo.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    14. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by ESqVIP · · Score: 1

      Nobody would ingest enough water to kill them to win a toaster.

      Bad comparison. Nobody would die (well, literally) for a toaster as toasters aren't anything novel. But the very same could have happened if the prize were a PS3. Or a Segway, even Segways aren't in the media anymore. Heck, a good amount of the Slashdot crowd would be willing to participate if they were offering an iPhone.

      So yes, while the title may be considered accurate, it still is misleading, as it sounds like there was some kind of Wii Sports competition.

    15. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "If I had just read that headline and none of the summary and/or story, I would probably imagine..."

      First of all, that's a lot of hypotheticals, secondly... it's the TITLE, the chunk of text underneith it says "there's more to this story", otherwise the title on it's own would have been sufficient. If you want to start drawing conclusions about something without actually reading it, then you're the only person to blame for your own faulty guesses.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    16. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "The point is that exactly what the prize was had nothing to do with why the accident occurred"

      The competition was created as a play on the name of the prize, that's called "relevance". Two things that aren't relevant are a squirrel and a ladder. See the difference?

      The fact is the article, and the title (as is what this thread started about) merely state fact. If you're reading into it in some way that sounds like the console is being blamed, you're misreading it, it was the peoples fault, but the competition WAS a competition for a Wii.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    17. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      "Then, throwing would-be critics a nasty curveball, you pre-empt what you *know* to be their rebuttals "

      I've posted on Slashdot before. ;) I've found that if you don't spell things out, some fool will reply with an ever-so-amazingly-obvious reply that has an even-more-amazingly-obvious rebuttal that you are then forced to post to prove you were not a complete moron after all. Never assume the reader can think. But by that time you've been modded as flamebait and overrated so much that your post is toast and ... Well, it all ends in tears.

      I'll admit their point was that it was misleading, but the information they chose to make that point... Nope. The post clearly states that the Wii was not related to the contest in any way, and it was.

      'Kill' does carry connotations and 'Wii' is definitely a buzzword, but 'Wii-related' is definitely the correct term. (Sometimes you have to pick your battles. Heh.)

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    18. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Kill: "to cause the death of"

      Fine, you want to play patronizing pedant? "Kill" is a transitive verb, which means it requires a subject and a direct object. This isn't clear to you because the title is expressed in passive voice: "Woman killed (by what?)" which obscures the fact that there is a necessary agency implied in the word "kill". Things kill other things and things are killed by other things. This is an aspect of language usually learned by the time someone has their first kiss. Apologies for my tone if you have not reached this stage of your life.

      The title only mentions the woman, which leaves us with the direct object. "What could it be" you ask? Well, if you read the story, it seems water is chiefly implicated. Was the water forced down her throat? No. Did she drink the water by herself? It seems so. Can you think of another word for dying from too much water? Can you think of another word for dying by your own hand? Equally retarded, both of those words would be just as inflammatory ("to cause to appear more significant") as the title above.

      As a tiny compromise, would it not actually be more clear to say "Woman Dies In Wii-Related Competition?" It doesn't leave anything out, it doesn't lead to any assumptions beyond the story, and it doesn't cause people to stand up for untenable grammatical stances.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    19. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of someone "killing themselves"?

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    20. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      It's much more clear and informative. Much *more* clear ? You dolt, this mistake renders your entire post unreadable and thus unclear.

    21. Re:Do you have no shame Skuttle? by rhizome · · Score: 1

      You've never heard of someone "killing themselves"?

      Are you saying that it would have been good (better?) journalism to say "Woman Commits Suicide In Wii-Related Contest"?

      At any rate, I'm explaining something I tried to cover in my comment:

      "Can you think of another word for dying by your own hand?"

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  16. isotonic drink ... by AtomicBomb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Before calling the poor woman a lemming/ a candidate for Darwin's award blahblahblah, I got to ask why can't they (the organisers) supply isotonic sports drink in this sort of competition?

    Water intoxication is more common than many of us would like to think. It is part of the reason why many marathons now supply sports drink in addition to water. Newbies in many cases either don't drink enough or cannot stop drinking until water drains them from the inside.

    1. Re:isotonic drink ... by SalaciousPucker · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking. Gatorade used at Marathons & the like has double the normal Sodium, not to mention the high quantity found in Gel Packs, etc. Still, even if they were balancing electrolytes, it's just not right to mess with the body chemistry like that. Nothing in that quantity can be a good thing. It can be risky with a seasoned runner, and a runner will have better feel for where their body is at than your average radio show contestant.

    2. Re:isotonic drink ... by dnc253 · · Score: 1

      I got to ask why can't they (the organisers) supply isotonic sports drink in this sort of competition?

      Simple. Price of water < Price of some type of sports drink.

    3. Re:isotonic drink ... by x2A · · Score: 1

      They were probably too busy laughing at "wii" hehe "wee" to stop and think.

      But yeah I see this all the time, people drinking loads of water but still feeling dehydrated. I get them to neck some salt, and they very quickly start to feel the water having an effect, as they can actually absorb it :-/

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:isotonic drink ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the drink was isotonic, the body's electrolytes would be balanced and there would not be excess water in your body. Your kidneys then wouldn't have excess water to get rid of and there would be normal urine output - the person wouldn't have to WEE as such.

    5. Re:isotonic drink ... by mochan_s · · Score: 2

      Yeah, right. At the CVS store, the bottle of Gatorade was the same price as that of (spring) water.

    6. Re:isotonic drink ... by lukesl · · Score: 1

      I don't think that any popular sports drinks are isotonic. If something has a high enough salt concentration to be isotonic, it tastes disgusting. Pedialyte is approximately isotonic, IIRC, and I think it has about twice the salt concentration of gatorade.

  17. In all things, moderation. by User+956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ne quid nimis. Aristotle was right.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:In all things, moderation. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 3, Funny

      It sounds like Aristotle was an extremist toward moderation, placing him in violation of his own principle.

      Me, well, I like moderation, but I am also a member of the extremist pedantry school of philosophy.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:In all things, moderation. by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Extremism in pursuit of moderation is no vice. --Aristotle/Cicero hybrid

  18. Re:Call the Darwin awards by idlemind · · Score: 1

    She has kids. Thanks for playing.

  19. Her family by inKubus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sorry in advance:

    Her family is probably pretty "Pissed". This contest really went down the "Toilet". I can't believe how it's been "Sprayed" all over the news. Talk about a "Drinking Problem". As said to the second place contestant: "Urine" luck! I guess she didn't really get a fair "Shake".

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
    1. Re:Her family by x2A · · Score: 1

      Ugh, you gotta be kidn'yin me!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  20. an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of her kids could freeze himself and call his mom when he gets thawed out in the future using a device solely intended for prank calls.

  21. what a "strange" way to die by Noishe · · Score: 1

    fta: Jennifer Strange was found dead on Friday at her home after taking part in a contest named "Hold your wee for a Wii"

    1. Re:what a "strange" way to die by Shai-kun · · Score: 1
      --
      ...or so I've been told.
  22. Re:Call the Darwin awards by dewie · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you can't figure out why a mother of three is ineligible for the Darwin Awards, I think you may need to climb out of the gene pool yourself.

    --
    Jurisprudence Fetishist Gets Off On A Technicality --theonion.com
  23. Re:Call the Darwin awards by Dionysus · · Score: 1

    She already had kids.

    --
    Je ne parle pas francais.
  24. High profile ecstasy related case in UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a high profile case related to this some time ago in the UK, where a girl died after drinking too much water because she had taken ecstasy...

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

  25. Re:Call the Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except she already had offspring, so her genes continue.

  26. You'd think after... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    ... this event (apparently not quite an isolated incident either) people would know better by now.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  27. Should have used beer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would have never happened with beer! You would be drunk off your ass long before you were poisoned.

  28. No, no, no by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    They should have had them drinking Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator. It's got what Moms crave. It's got electrolytes.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:No, no, no by lidocaineus · · Score: 1

      Oh for mod points!!

    2. Re:No, no, no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ow, my balls!

    3. Re:No, no, no by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Haha, now there's a movie that needs wider exposure in the geek community :) Too bad it got no more than a cursory theatrical release, and no promotion at all. Freakin' Fox.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    4. Re:No, no, no by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Actually, I saw it mentioned in this topic, leeched it, just watched it and enjoyed it :D

      Spreading the love to my friends ^_^

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  29. Ecstacy deaths by hc5duke · · Score: 1

    A lot of deaths related to ecstasy (MDMA) is caused by the user feeling thirsty and drinking too much water.

  30. Re:Sad but ... by maxume · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it's a good thing she didn't manage to leave behind three kids.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  31. 10 minutes of research by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

    ..could have saved her life. Someone point the other contestants to this link before they start killing themselves too.

    1. Re:10 minutes of research by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Apparently in the process of trying to humiliate someone by using the justfuckinggoogleit.com link you should have checked that it doesn't work anymore:

      Forbidden

      Your client does not have permission to get URL /custom?query=water+poisoning&sa=Search&client=pub -5834014132134539&forid=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&cof=GA LT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A 663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A33669 9%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT %3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A1%3B&hl=en from this server. (Client IP address: 66.67.221.163)

      The website you've just visited has tried to provide you with search results from Google. Unfortunately, the site violates our terms of service so your search could not be completed. If you would like to continue with your search, please click the link below, which will take you directly to Google and the results you've requested. We apologize for the inconvenience and encourage you to conduct future searches directly from google.com or through the Google Toolbar, which can be downloaded for free from this address: http://toolbar.google.com./
      Click here to continue your search on Google.

    2. Re:10 minutes of research by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Someone point the other contestants to"

      I err, don't think the other contestants are still playing...

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  32. drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    and then lots of bad things can happen, like you can die from the cardiac arrest. of course it flushes other minerals too but seems like sodium is the most important one.

    (funny because I actually have to maintain low sodium because of the high blood pressure.)

    1. Re:drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1

      "seems like sodium is the most important one."

      AKA: Salt (Sodium Chloride). Geeks know pure water does not conduct electricity. Salt provides the ions in your body that conduct electricity so things like your heart keep beating.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by jwilcox154 · · Score: 1

      and then lots of bad things can happen, like you can die from the cardiac arrest. of course it flushes other minerals too but seems like sodium is the most important one.
       
      (funny because I actually have to maintain low sodium because of the high blood pressure.) We are supposed to ingest sodium? Gee, I didn't know we were supposed to blow ourselves up. All this time I thought it was sodium chloride we are supposed to ingest. *rimshot* ;)
    3. Re:drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Low sodium chloride causes cells to reverse osmosis and swell, sometimes 'popping.'

      Low magnesium salts can cause heart failure - which is why cardiac patients are given magnesium salts in their IV drips along with the typical saline solution and whatever other medication they need in preparation for their treatment.

    4. Re:drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by shawb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Water intoxication and other hyponatrimic conditions aren't directly caused by failure to conduct electricity. The direct cause is related to osmotic pressure: With a rapid intake of water, the fluid in the bloodstream and other interstitial (the places between cells) fluids experience a rapid decrease in salt concentration. This means that there is a large gradient between concentrations of solvents at the border of the cellular membrane. The two solutions will "try" to equalize in terms of amounts of solvents (the word try is in quotes because it is an anthropomorphism, what actually happens is the solvent and solutes will dissipate in such as way as to achieve the lowest energy state, according to the laws of thermodynamics.) Salts, sugars and many other of the dissolved chemicals can not pass through the cell membrane quickly, but water can pass freely. Water therefore flows freely into the cell in "an attempt" at equalizing the concentrations of solvent and solute. The large gradient means water flows very quickly into the cell, leading to a buildup of pressure. This pressure will distort the shape of the cell, hampering it's function or even cause the cell to rupture. This happens in just about all cells in the body, and the system that can least handle the deformation and subsequent loss of function is the nervous system. When the nervous system shuts down far enough, it can no longer control heart rate or breathing, and the person (or animal) can subsequently die from this shutdown if nothing is done to reverse the osmotic imbalance such as giving diuretics, intravenous administration of appropriate amounts of hypertonic (I.E. more salt and other solvents than the blood normally carries) solutions.

      In fact, it really doesn't matter WHICH solute or solutes are low in concentration. It's a matter of the concentration of water in the blood is simply too high, causing osmotic pressure. But the imbalance is easiest measured by measuring the concentration of sodium in the blood, so the imbalance is called hyponatrimia, or low sodium levels.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:drinking too much water flushes the sodium out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That has got to be the most fucktarded post of all time on Slashdot. Tell us what, why don't you accellerate the natural selection process and slit your fucking wrists fucktard so there would be one less fucktard in the god damned gene pool.

  33. Dangerous! by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dihydrogen Monoxide is Dangerous! They've been telling us for years, but we just don't listen!

    http://www.dhmo.org/

    --
    "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    1. Re:Dangerous! by mfender9 · · Score: 1

      My chemistry is definitely rusty, and this is way offtopic, but I still have to ask: wouldn't it actually be "hydrogen hydroxide"? Isn't water a H+ and an OH-?

    2. Re:Dangerous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly why I only drink pure-grain alcohol.

    3. Re:Dangerous! by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

      No.

      Pure water isn't very conductive. That's a clear hint it's not ionized normally.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Dangerous! by vladsinger · · Score: 1

      I'm in high school Chem, and from what I gathered, since water is a covalent molecule, one uses the prefix system to name it. 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen = dihydrogen monoxide vs. in an ionic compound, which consists of a metal bonded to a nonmetal/polyatomic ion. Hydrogen is not a metal. :) Ok?

  34. DHMO Danger by Tx · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Well, it's not like we weren't warned about Dihydrogen Monoxide! Who knew, the stuff actually can kill you after all.

    --
    Oh no... it's the future.
  35. Re:Call the Darwin awards by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    Yes, but now that they're without a mother they may be more susceptible to other dangers in the world...

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  36. the "don't hurt yourself" warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    They were negligent because they were having a potentially deadly contest, and they should have had some absolute limits, beyond which a tie is issued. A "play to the death" contest is not acceptable.

  37. I think the point was that she couldn't pee by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Hold your wee for a Wii"

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
    1. Re:I think the point was that she couldn't pee by chiefer · · Score: 0

      Touche' however the bladder would be the "holding tank," while the kidney's still help filter the H20.

  38. DHMO strikes again! by noidentity · · Score: 0, Redundant

    If only they had read DHMO Research Division's Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide, they would have known the dangers posed by this unrestricted substance. Ban DHMO now!

  39. Reversal day by clashdot · · Score: 1

    Today, I hope the broken American patent system will grant Red Hat their software patent for DRM technology.

    Today, I hope the broken American justice system will find a way to separate this radio station and its people from all their assets.

    Tomorrow, everything will be back to normal.

    (As a side note, I don't find it fitting to make fun of this unfortunate woman for not being familiar with the physiological consequences of extreme water intake. I believe most people are not.)
    1. Re:Reversal day by KillerBob · · Score: 1
      (As a side note, I don't find it fitting to make fun of this unfortunate woman for not being familiar with the physiological consequences of extreme water intake. I believe most people are not.)


      Agreed. I didn't even learn about secondary drowning (another name for what killed this woman) until I started training to become a lifeguard. According to the reuters story about this that I read yesterday, the woman reported that she had a headache before she left. The medical professionals on site should have recognized that as a possible symptom, and they should have been aware of the possible health risks involved in this kind of contest.

      Too much of anything can kill you. Water included.
      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Reversal day by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Too much of anything can kill you"

      Well done... the clue is in the words "too much", it's like... what they mean.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  40. Should've known.. by smitty97 · · Score: 1

    The radio station's name is "KDND 107.9 The END"

    --
    mod me funny
  41. How Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger, but the contestants are not?

    Because the radio station is putting the contestants in the danger that they need to understand in the first place.

    1. Re:How Insightful by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      But the contestants are putting themselves in danger that they need to understand in the first place.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  42. Killed!! by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Right but on the other hand this woman did not get up one morning decide to drink
    canada dry. Obviously to her the prize was worth tremendous effort, exertion and
    possibly humiliation.

    Should the DA decide to make a case out of it, he'll flesh it out along the lines of
    who put how much pressure on that woman to keep going.

    1. Re:Killed!! by dcsmith · · Score: 1
      Right but on the other hand this woman did not get up one morning decide to drink canada dry .


      You got a problem with ginger ale, buddy?

      --
      This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
  43. DHM strikes again by Potent · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Deadly dihydrogen monoxide claims another victim!

    --
    Out of order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works! - Dark Helmet (Rick Moranis) "Spaceballs"
  44. Re:Call the Darwin awards by PingSpike · · Score: 1

    They live in the modern United States...not a prehistoric cave. Not only do the probably have a father, but they also probably have a life insurance payout.

    Stupid people are actively protected from themselves in our society, and incidentally reproduce at will since society will prevent their cheeto-stained offspring from starving to death. As amusing as the darwin awards are, they're really the exception, not the rule.

  45. Because they incited the act. by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I did something stupid like this, I'd be up on charges of manslaughter. So would you.

    It doesn't mean you wouldn't get off (You might...but you'd still get tried for it in most cases...)- but just because it's a radio station (or other business) doesn't let you off of culpability for this sort of thing.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Because they incited the act. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe not manslaughter but definitely probable cause .. where your actions can cause the death of another.

  46. Umm by ad0gg · · Score: 1

    Do you think people would do the same contest for a ps3? :)

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

  47. Re:Call the Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As evidenced by several other posters on this topic, it's not reasonable to think that you can die from too much water. Of course, now everyone knows. Not to excuse the station... they should have researched this a bit - now they'll get sued and probably lose.

    So, I don't think this tragic death would even count as a Darwin contender, kids or not.

    Not to mention, it's a pretty fucking insensitive attitude to take, considering the loss to her family. May you never be the recipient of such treatment.

  48. A change in the wind says you. by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

    A humongus lawsuit on its way says I.

  49. This problem can be solved with legislation by PingSpike · · Score: 5, Funny

    Clearly this water stuff is a dangerous substance that needs to be controlled. I think it should only be available from behind the pharmacy counter, that way kids don't get ahold of it and drink themselves to death.

    1. Re:This problem can be solved with legislation by ptelligence · · Score: 1

      Water? Isn't that used to make Meth?

    2. Re:This problem can be solved with legislation by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      Imagine if terrorists get hold of this water stuff, and try to poison us by putting it into our water supply! :-|

  50. News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by AceM2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With such a gigantic user community, I am always amazed how long it takes Slashdot to pick up stories. When I first started reading, I was finding out about new and obscure stories and events left and right it seemed, but now I'm hearing stories like this on the local radio long before it his Slashdot. Is it because there literally are so many stories being submitted, or is the staff and community at Slashdot just that behind lately?

    1. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      While browsing this new firehose stuff, I've seen this story submitted around ten times...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by Spacezilla · · Score: 1

      *bump*

      (I'm new here.)

    3. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      I submitted it several times, but I guess Zonk didn't want any anti-Wii story to get posted.

    4. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot isn't a news site, it's a discussion site. If you're coming here for breaking news, you picked the wrong site.

    5. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by Neoncow · · Score: 1

      Same here. Actually, this story is my first experience with the whole slashdot firehose thing. I downvoted a bunch of stories with worse titles than this story last night, but it seems this title won out.

      I'm thinking that the firehose adds an interesting dynamic to Slashdot. We now have two speeds, slow and crazy fast (when you set the firehose threshold really low the junk just spews in).

    6. Re:News spreads slowly through Slashdot... by AceM2 · · Score: 1
      Realizing your comment is flamebait - I'm still going to comment because I know others are thinking the same. I've been reading Slashdot since... around the time it started, and I grew to understand what to expect. As I stated in my original post:

      When I first started reading, I was finding out about new and obscure stories and events left and right it seemed, but now I'm hearing stories like this on the local radio long before it his Slashdot.

      So if you have half a brain, you can see at one time Slashdot had some bleeding-edge-brand-new-cool-stuff on it when I started reading, and now it's different. Since you don't know me, I'll point out I took about a 2 year hiatus when I first joined the Army and am just now getting back into it (just as we prepare to deploy - go figure). So, I had a chance to get away and compare then to now. Anyhow, I've gotten way off subject.

      Slashdot isn't a news site,

      You are joking, right? The title of the site includes the word "News". It would not say "news" if it wasn't a news site. Besides, that one word implies, well... New. Based on what I 'grew up with' on Slashdot - it's a lot more than just a news discussion site. Come on, if it wasn't about getting new stories they wouldn't update it so often and people wouldn't be able to submit stories.
      I love Slashdot, but I'm not going to make excuses like that for it. Especially when the title clearly has the word "News" in it! We can do better than this...
  51. It was even on Simpsons, can't be more known... by Mirar · · Score: 1

    Tyco Brae died from holding his wee.

    Even grandpa Simpson suffered from exploded kidneys for holding his wee.

    All right, so she probably didn't die from holding her wee but the water. But it was still a dangerous competition.

  52. While its sad she died... by BobSutan · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...did she win?

    --
    "On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
    1. Re:While its sad she died... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she didn't.

  53. Plagarising Bastards! by elviscious · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From the article:
    Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is upset by a rapid intake of water.

    From Wikipedia:
    Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by a very rapid intake of water.

    What is this 8th grade English class?
    1. Re:Plagarising Bastards! by Falladir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe he wrote the article. You never know, with Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Plagarising Bastards! by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      [UPDATE - 4.34pm PST, 01/15/07 - Wikipedia reference to water intoxication now correctly credited - our apologies.]

      Nice.

    3. Re:Plagarising Bastards! by KKlaus · · Score: 1

      Maybe they wrote the wikipedia article themselves. How do you know they didn't? :D

      --
      Relax I just want some peanuts.
  54. Passive?? by BrujoSol · · Score: 1

    Sorry, may be wrong here, but I thought passive (voice) verbs occurred when the subject of the sentence was not the one committing the action. To say that, "She died." is to say that she was the one undertaking the dying action, which is an action, just not a something that people usually choose to do. I don't think there is a way to make "die" passive. You could say, "She was killed by the massive amount of water she drank," which would be passive, since she isn't doing the killing.


    But, grammar aside.


    ... Did she win? Get close to winning? I think just the sheer tenacity of it all deserves something (in addition to a settlement).

    1. Re:Passive?? by TheShadowzero · · Score: 1

      You are correct. What the GP meant was "To die is an intransitive verb."

      --
      If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
    2. Re:Passive?? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      'Killed' implies directed action. "Woman Killed in Wii-Related Competition" sounds like one of the other contestants offed her to avoid losing or something.

      "Woman Dies in Wii-Related Competition" implies that her death was directly related to the competition itself. "Woman Dies During Wii-Related Competition" implies that she was a spectator or something, and that her death wasn't related to the competition itself.

      At least, that's how I'd use those various phrases.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Passive?? by PinkPanther · · Score: 0
      and that her death wasn't related to the competition itself.
      But her death was directly related to the competition. The rules involved contestants drinking large quantities of water while not allowing their bodies natural process to rid itself of excess.

      In fact, it could be argued that the most irrelevant in the article's title is Wii (though I won't make that argument myself) :-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    4. Re:Passive?? by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1
      while not allowing their bodies natural process to rid itself of excess.
      How on earth did they do this? From a certain point those 'natural process' should not be a voluntary act anymore.
    5. Re:Passive?? by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      I remember an old Japanese game show where they gave contestants a couple of pints of beer, and the last person to take a piss was the winner. Of course it was only a couple of beers, and they were sitting in a shallow pool of ice which made the urge to pee even greater. I don't think it was dangerous, but it was sure funny to watch they try to hold their pee.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    6. Re:Passive?? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Yes that's what I meant, thank you.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    7. Re:Passive?? by PinkPanther · · Score: 1

      In University, we played Century Club with the twist that you could not leave the room for any reason, not even bathroom breaks, for the full 100 minutes (well, 101 minutes for the "winners").

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
    8. Re:Passive?? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 1

      i know of a bar that has a promotion every once in a while, where the drinks are free, until one person pees. they start the drinks at a certain time, and you can leave whenever you want, drink as much as you want, but if you leave, you can't come back. and the drinks are free(it might just be beer, it's been a while...) until the first person breaks down and hits the toilet. needless to say, you don't wanna be that guy...

  55. Googling for 'Wii fatality' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. She may have been an invitee by Infonaut · · Score: 1

    Don't you know that only the person or organization with the most money is ever responsible?

    A plaintiff will go after who ever has the deepest pockets, but that doesn't mean the plaintiff will recover from the defendant with the most money. In this case, however, it is likely that because the woman was invited to the contest, she was for legal purposes an invitee. There is a legal difference between the standard of care you have toward someone you randomly encounter on the street, for example, and someone you invite into your home, place of business, or perhaps a contest.

    Just becuase there may be a higher standard of care in this case doesn't mean that the radio station will be found negligent. However, just because she signed waiver forms doesn't mean they will be automatically not be found negligent. Many people hold the mistaken belief that waivers of liability automatically protect the party drafting the waiver, but in actuality if the language of a waiver is nonobvious, or if it is weighted too far in favor of the rights of the drafting party, sections of the waiver can be ruled non-binding.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  57. no corporate contest is run by "ordinary people" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    it's run by lawyers.

    If you don't know that, you've never tried to read the gobs of fine print attached to every single corporate contest.

    This contest wasn't something cooked up by some guys in their clubhouse it was a corporate promotion and lawyers insist on vetting those because they offer all sorts of ways the company can get in trouble.

  58. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by mockchoi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    wtf???? Try to get a payout? Do you think this woman's kids are jumping up and down in anticipation of making some money over their mother's death? There may be frivolous lawsuits (not nearly as many as people think,) but this is a case that the legal system was made for.

  59. Woah! Careful now! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    Next you'll end up soliciting intelligence-related replies.

    This reply was posted using Wii btw, so it is also Wii related.

  60. Obligatory link by pctainto · · Score: 4, Informative
    Wikipedia article

    Basically, the combination of you drinking too much water and not getting rid of it throws your electrolytes out of whack... you have too much water, so the concentration of electrolytes isn't high enough for your body to carry signals. It happens a lot with marathon runners. Especially runners that don't stop to pee. Many people have died from this even though they were getting enough because they refused to pee out the excess water.

    --
    I think my principles are reachin' an all time low
    1. Re:Obligatory link by faraway · · Score: 1

      Your body starts retaining the water in an effort to keep sodium in the body. Those runners also need more sodium in their diet.

  61. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What have we become?

    The United States of America, the home of the largest population of lawyers.
  62. Radio station is at fault by sheldon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not one to support frivolous lawsuits, but when I first heard about this contest a week or so back I wondered if they were aware that drinking too much water can be extremely dangerous. Apparently not, the "you can quit at any time if you feel bad" wasn't much of a disclaimer. From all the reports I've read, they didn't even consult with doctors.

    I'm sad that my initial assumption that this would turn out bad came true. I'd rather be wrong on things like this.

    1. Re:Radio station is at fault by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So.. you knew about the danger and it didn't occur to you to pop 'em an email letting the station know about it?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Radio station is at fault by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      "you can quit at any time if you feel bad" wasn't much of a disclaimer

      I don't know much about it, but I would suspect that by the time you feel bad (i.e. - not just have to take the mother of all leaks), it may be too late.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Radio station is at fault by Tanuki64 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Apparently not, the "you can quit at any time if you feel bad" wasn't much of a disclaimer. From all the reports I've read, they didn't even consult with doctors.

      In hindsight this is easy to say. If you did not hear of a concrete case of water poisoning it is hard to estimate the dangers. I heard of problems and even death through too much water during marathons, but I would never have guessed that you can drink yourself voluntarily to death in normal circumstances. I would have suspected that sooner or later a contestant cannot help but getting rid of the excess water, one way or the other.

      Read most of the responses to this article here. Most of us would have underestimated the dangers, so why not the radio station people?
    4. Re:Radio station is at fault by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Whoah he might have known about the danger but you would think that the radio station would have consulted a physician and setup the right limits on the people doing the contest. This contest should have been monitored by the station not its listeners. Most radio stations usually over publicise these things and they really arn't what you think they are. He probably thought that they would know the risks or at least do the research and know what not to do. Like kill people. Its like telling people you'll give them 100 dollars to jump off of a bridge. Its sounds way different than bundgy jumping yet you kind of assume there will be a cord attached in either case. If the guy jumped off without the cord thinking that he would be safe its not the persons fault that he didn't say something before hand. Hindsite is 20/20.

    5. Re:Radio station is at fault by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1
      Read most of the responses to this article here. Most of us would have underestimated the dangers, so why not the radio station people?


      Clearly they did underestimate the dangers. That's the problem - when you host a contest like this, it's up to you to do the research and understand the dangers.

      "We didn't know that it could cause death" doesn't cut it. That's why it's negligence!
    6. Re:Radio station is at fault by Tanuki64 · · Score: 1

      I am a bit ambivalent here. On the one hand I'd like to agree. On the other hand you should be aware that something like that always can happen. Most people would try to get further information if they suspect strongly enough that there is danger involved. But 'underestimate' just means that they did not expect real danger. Do you really check for everything you do whether it might me dangerous?

      Example: You know that some people are allergic to nuts. When you invite friends, do you always ask them for allergies before you give them something to eat? Check the food of possibly harmful contents? If not, are you not negligent?

    7. Re:Radio station is at fault by welshsocialist · · Score: 1

      First off, this "contest" was not a good idea. From all the things coming out, there appears to be enough fsck ups to make the government proud. IF the station had asked me to put on the "contest", I would have a reasonable time limit for drinking the water in the same size bottles. At the end of the time limit, I would have the bottles counted; the person with the most empty bottles gets the Wii. If the station had done the "contest" this way, we would not be here talking about a senseless tragedy.

      Now that the show was suspended, and then cancelled, plus the show's staff canned, the folks who put on this "contest" will have a long to think about their actions and the blood on their hands.

      --
      Support the Chagossians
  63. information overload by Cally · · Score: 1
    Dupe! I thought, as I saw the headline. Or am I just remembering seeing it in Firehose? No, no that can't be it, because I remember seeing it in Firehose and marking it as a dupe... BUT WAIT! I'm sure I've seen this on the BBC, and the Register, and BoingBoing, and Reddit... but where did I see it first?

    I thought it was here...

    --
    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
  64. So... by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If I have a contest whereby the person who drinks the most vodka in a 3 hour period wins an XBox360, any alcohol poisoning deaths aren't my fault?


    Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a contest where people shoot apples off each other's heads William Tell style! I bet that'd get great ratings!

    --
    The cake is a pie
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooo, ooo! The prize could be an iPhone!

    2. Re:So... by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 1

      Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a contest where people shoot apples off each other's heads William Tell style! I bet that'd get great ratings!

      A much closer example would be a contest to see who can eat more apple seeds.
      Probably just as few people understand the dangers of that as would understand the dangers of a water drinking contest.

    3. Re:So... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Apple seeds? I knew almonds and peach pits could give you cyanide poisoning, but apple seeds?

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, is too hard to google for "apple seeds poison" that you had to post the question instead?

    5. Re:So... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I was in a rush, anonymous troll.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      still takes longer to post than to google
      and you actually get an answer with the later

    7. Re:So... by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      This might surprise you, since you never set foot outside your mother's basement and only speak to her when she brings you dinner or clean laundry, but some people enjoy interacting with others, and some people enjoy sharing their knowledge.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:So... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I believe the alleged brain-rotting properties of real scrumpy (rough cider) is due to the cyanide in apple pips.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  65. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by TeraCo · · Score: 1
    If a radio station held a 'Let's play Russian Roulette' contest for a prize, should the family of the person who shoots themselves be able to sue?



    Sure, because hosting this sort of competition is illegal.

    --
    Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
  66. Re:ALL YOU FUCKTARDED PRETENDO PISS FUCKTARDS SHOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of my biochem prof, who once took part in a sauerkraut eating competition. The winner died due to the acetic acid overwhelming his blood pH buffer.

    condolences to the family.

  67. Are you seriously asking this? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >Why is the radio station obliged to understand the danger,
    >but the contestants are not?

    Because the radio station is planning the freakin contest. They have staff devoted to planning the thing, and it's their responsibility to make sure that the event goes smoothly and safely.

    Sheesh, you could sue the station if you slipped on the ice on their sidewalk. Why would this be any different?

    1. Re:Are you seriously asking this? by inviolet · · Score: 1
      Sheesh, you could sue the station if you slipped on the ice on their sidewalk. Why would this be any different?

      It isn't any different. That's the point of this whole thread.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:Are you seriously asking this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't any different. That's the point of this whole thread.

      Um, yes it is different. The radio station isn't offering a Wii to anyone who slips on the ice out front.

      Quit pretending to be stupid.

    3. Re:Are you seriously asking this? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It isn't any different. That's the point of this whole thread.

      Right, and a business or property owner is responsible for making sure that visitors don't slip on their icy sidewalks by putting salt down.

      So it is the same, and in both cases the radio station would be responsible.

      What was your point again?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Are you seriously asking this? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      The point is apparently that salt could have saved this radio station multiple problems and money...

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    5. Re:Are you seriously asking this? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      +1, Witty!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  68. How do you figure? by Generic+Player · · Score: 1

    32 ounces of water is 0.95 L. Going by the low end 0.9L, she is going to be unable to keep up. If she has been tricked into a low sodium diet by quack "nutritionists" who pretend that's healthy, then she'd be in real trouble right there, no "severe" defeciency needed. But on top of that, your kidneys slow down when your bladder is full, which makes it worse, and they increased the water intake as the contest went on.

    She ended up drinking over a gallon of water in the contest. Everyone else who lasted any length in the contest was also very sick. On top of the fact that the idiots running this contest should have known better, a nurse called in to the station to warn them to stop or they could die, and the DJ dismissed her warning and said it was just a fun contest.

  69. Where the water goes by Kelson · · Score: 1
    You'd think it would just stay in your stomach if your bladder was full and you were holding it but apparently it somehow goes somewhere else and kills you.

    Water goes from your stomach to your intestines, and is absorbed into your bloodstream, and from there into other tissues. Only after it's in your system do the kidneys remove the excess and send it to your bladder. It's not as if there's a tube that leads straight from your stomach to your bladder.

    1. Re:Where the water goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this isn't actually the fault of to much sodium passing into the urine, but instead a result of the absorption in the intestines proceeding far faster than the kidneys could remove the exese water from the blood.

  70. WMD by redog · · Score: 1

    We must act quickly to ensure the safety of freedom and the American people by eliminating the threat of WMD(Waters of Mass Destruction). Americans will not tolerate such a threat to safety or freedom.

  71. So this is partially Nintendo's fault, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, when homeless people were in line because of the high demand and short supply of PS3s, Slashdot's ever-so-neutral editors decreed that it was partially Sony's fault, and only after the angry outcry by Slashdotters.

    So now, the high demand and short supply indirectly led to this too. Is this partially Nintendo's fault? C'mon editors, I want to know...

  72. Re:Darwin Wins! by kmkz · · Score: 0, Troll

    You're an asshole and should die

  73. In the information age... by thanksforthecrabs · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    this happened two days ago...yawn...next tragedy, please?

  74. Re:Call the Darwin awards by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    You had really never heard of water intoxication? It's not exactly an obscure piece of knowledge.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  75. Re:ALL YOU FUCKTARDED PRETENDO PISS FUCKTARDS SHOU by east+coast · · Score: 3, Funny

    0H WAIT, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO ONE LEFT T0 POST ON SHITD0T!!

    You're plainly wrong, sir. I haven't owned a video game machine since the Atari 2600. I demand an apology; I'm an entirely different kind of fucktard.

    Oh, Wait...

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  76. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by GeckoX · · Score: 1

    Yes, but who would expect that someone could die by participating in a radio show contest?

    There's definitely a reasonable expectation of safety there. Games to the death are not exactly condoned in our society.

    Unless you already KNEW there was danger in taking part, what would make you question whether it was safe to participate or not?

    --
    No Comment.
  77. Anybody else think this? by Joelfabulous · · Score: 1

    When I read the headline, I figured someone forgot to replace the faulty strap on the Wiimote. Nothing quite like a controller-induced concussion...

    --
    Sometimes I wonder if I think too much.
    1. Re:Anybody else think this? by hjo3 · · Score: 1
  78. What's wrong with that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you know that the OIL companies, the CHEMICAL companies, the NUCLEAR companies and the TOBACCO all use Dihydrogen Monoxide?

    This stuff should be banned. I, for one am glad I signed that petition!

  79. What's deceptive about it? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    After all, it's probably the only reason that a good percentage of Slashdotters would even care about the poor lady's death. Not too many people are aware that you can die from excessive drinking of water. This would just be an "Oddly Enough" story "unworthy" of Slashdot's attention if there wasn't a geeky angle to it.

    Sad, I know.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  80. First thing that comes to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    HYDR-OWNED!!!!

    sfsp

  81. That's a no-brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm an EMT, and it never fails during the summer months, that we will be asked to volunteer at an outdoor event, and we'll run into two or three of these in a weekend.

    Yes, you're always told to drink lots of water. That's all fine and dandy, however, you need to replace your electrolytes that your body goes through.

    Gatorade, powerade, propel, etc. are good choices.

  82. Answers.com by gatzke · · Score: 1


    I think I read that most of the stuff in answers.com was ripped from a earlier version of Wikipedia, so linking to both is redundant in many cases.

  83. Re:Call the Darwin awards by aasitus · · Score: 1
  84. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm trying to understand your comment, and I see three possibilities. Either:

    (a) You believe this woman intentionally got herself killed in order to collect easy money from the radio station.
    (b) You don't believe that the radio station, which set the rules of this contest and provided enticement for people to participate, was at all negligent in not exploring the possible injuries that could result from it.
    (c) Your comment had nothing to do with this case, you just have a problem with lawsuits in general.

    Assuming (c), I feel like I should point out that, given the facts as we currently understand them, this would hardly be a frivolous lawsuit. The radio station was clearly negligent in not exploring the hazards of what they were encouraging people to do and, although you may not think it's fair, they have an obligation under the law to do so.

    Furthermore, the example you cited with the GPS, aside from sounding like an obvious urban legend, doesn't actually map to this situation. Anyone with a driver's license should know that you look before you turn your car, but understanding the risks of this sort of contest would require some basic medical training. It is therefore reasonable to expect a driver to look before turning and not reasonable to expect the average person to understand the health risks of this sort of activity.

    Which is, ultimately, why we as a society have lawsuits like this. The radio station was obligated to do their due-diligence before enticing people into this behavior. And that's why they're going to get clobbered by the lawsuit that will come from this.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  85. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by GR1NCH · · Score: 1

    For the most part I agree with you.
    People bringing cases against McDonald's because it made them fat or because they spilled their hot coffee on themselves are frivoulous at best. However this is a completely different case. There is gross negligence on behalf of the Radio Station, which at the least should have had a trained medical professional on hand. I think it is very unfortunate that nobody stepped up and made people aware of the dangers of this event.
    My thoughts and prayers go out to the family.

  86. hm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i like the part "if you think that your health can't take this, then.."

    it's not a matter of certain persons being more tolerable to a certain percentage of water diluting the blood.
    anyone can die of this, regardless their state of health. just arranging a competition like this is completely idiotic, as idiotic as the woman is claimed to be for not knowing about it. hopefully the arrangers go to jail for being part in causing her death, and putting all the others at risk. idiots.

  87. Water Diet by KingNaught · · Score: 1

    I remember a few years ago a story about parents being charged with their young daughter's death becuase she died from the "Water Diet" they had her on.

  88. Their Moniker? by JerC · · Score: 1

    107.9 THE END. I guess it was, for at least one lady. KDND Website

    --
    Sigs are for squares. Like pants!
  89. Gatorade? by HunterZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why the heck didn't they use Gatorade instead of water?

    --
    Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
    1. Re:Gatorade? by djtack · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, gatorade probably would have saved her life. Not sure why parent is modded funny?

    2. Re:Gatorade? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      No, the obvious question is why they didn't use urine instead of water? Oh wait, you said Gatorade. N/m.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    3. Re:Gatorade? by ecuador_gr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is this modded funny? Parent is serious. Sports drinks would have been safe (though I am not positive Gatorade specifically has electrolytes).

    4. Re:Gatorade? by smchris · · Score: 1

      Dunno. _Would_ retaining a WHOLE LOT of Sodium and Potassium have been safe just because they were balanced?

    5. Re:Gatorade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is this modded funny?

      There are two ways that Gatorade (or Powerade or most any sports drink) would be vastly superior to water. First, the sugar content in a sports drink raises the blood sugar, causing a feeling of satiation. It would be far more difficult to consume two liters of a sports drink than two liters of water (the amount that the lady drank). It's somewhat self-regulating. Second, the isotonic solution wouldn't disrupt the balance in electrolytes, which is the cause of death for this lady.

      The use of Gatorade would be safer, by far.

  90. Really Common by Dhoffdude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those who know of frat initiations also know how dangerous this is.

    During the early 90's many colleges and Frats were banning drinking, in order to continue with the traditions of the frats, they replaced beer with water.

    Imagine a keggar with water, including all the stupid drinking games.

    People didn't know how dangerous this was. The universities and Frats approved the activity as childish fun, until people started dying from the hyperhydration.

    Beer funnels killed students with or without beer.
    too much of anything is a bad thing.

  91. So... by midkay · · Score: 1

    Who won the contest?

  92. Nintendo could be liable as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering these kind of contests are almost always a paid advertisement for the product being given away, Nintendo could be liable as well.

  93. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you are disputing the facts as we know them of this case, your post is nonsensical. Suing a party who put on a contest that put its contestants at serious risk of health without disclosing this serious risk makes the radio station liable for what they did. This lady would not be dead had the radio station not pulled this seriously stupid stunt. The radio station owes this person's family some serious money for the death their negligence caused. You might give some serious consideration to your spouting the corporate-line on "responsibility", a version of responsibility that never extends to those corporations but always the people the corporation's actions put at risk. It is sickening to say the least.

  94. Lawyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who won the contest?

    Well..... *the* contest isn't over, in fact it's just beginning. The radio station might have already given the video game away, but the real contest -- the one that will be played out in the courts -- is getting ready to begin. I predict a bunch of lawyers will soon own most what will be liquidated from the corporate assets of a certain soon-to-be-ex-radio station in the end.

  95. I'm sure this makes me the most horrible person by Mad-cat · · Score: 1

    This may make me the most horrible person in the world, but I couldn't stop laughing after reading this.

  96. Water Poisoning by nukeade · · Score: 1

    I'm actually surprised they didn't vomit as a reflex.

    At one point I was doing some work for a friend who wasn't home (it was really hot out and his place was locked), and neglected to bring water. Needless to say, by the time I drove home I was about as thirsty as I'd ever been before. Water never tasted so good before or since, and I must have taken in most of a gallon jug in the space of a few minutes.

    About 2 minutes later, it was all coming back out the way it came in.

    ~Ben

    1. Re:Water Poisoning by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Different people have different reactions. One time, when I was dehydrated, I walked into my regular coffee shop and asked for the biggest cup of tap water they had. 42oz. I drained it in under 20s, and asked for another, and then another. A gallon of water in about 2 minutes. I kept it all down, much to the amazement of the girl behind the counter who had never seen anybody drink as much. By the time I got home, I had to go to the can. Badly. ;)

      Drinking a gallon of water in one sitting is pretty stupid. Could have caused serious problems for me. And I sincerely doubt I could drink that much now. But the point is that there's a million and one factors that can affect how much of anything you can take before your body has an adverse reaction. And as this story tells, the adverse reaction isn't always immediate.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    2. Re:Water Poisoning by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> The host of the competition IS at FAULT for her DEATH.

      Baloney.
      Your comment perfectly highlights the ridiculous blame/litigate mentality prevalent in the US that people shouldn't be responsible for their own stupid actions.

    3. Re:Water Poisoning by Eun-HjZjiNeD · · Score: 1

      I will have you know that I am CANADIAN not AMERICAN.

      The host is at fault for, not just hosting a competition that is potentially fatal, but for her death as well. The host did NOT provide vital information concerning health implications. You can be brought to court just for that alone.

      People should inform themselves on the laws of the country they are in. Failing to provide information about something that is being injested/consumed is an offense. This case ended in fatality. Therefore the host is liable for her death and the resulting damages concerning her death/family/burial.

      Research a little before you lay blame.

      --
      ..::ALWAYS : watching::..
    4. Re:Water Poisoning by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      A gallon of water in one sitting..

      The only way you could have avoided water poisoning in that situation is if you were already badly dehydrated, to the point that a large part of the water simply restored the normal balance.

      Your memory may be exaggerated.

  97. Darwin Award? by not-enough-info · · Score: 1

    Don't her 3 kids disqualify her for a Darwin Award?

    Strange as that may be...

    --
    ---k--
    </stupid>
  98. Mod Parent Redundant by Torvaun · · Score: 1

    This is Slashdot, after all.

    --
    I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
  99. Question: What if another liquid? (-ade) by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    What about powerade, gatorade, etc.
    Will they mess you up as badly as water?

    I knew about water poisoning but I don't know if another balanced liquid of some kind would not be a problem.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  100. Save the American Clay Pigeon by hduff · · Score: 0

    Become informed of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide before it's too late! And please work to save the American Clay Pigeon. Tens of thousands of these delicate creatures (they are fragile as eggs) are blasted by evil hunters every year -- and then left on the ground because they're not even edible. Yet the slaughter continues!
    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  101. They were given water without electrolytes? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    She was killed by her own stupidity, water posioning So, tell me, how much water do you have to drink before you poison yourself with it? No peaking at google now. Ignorance rather than stupidity killed her, the ignorance of the people supplying the water and the ignorance of the woman herself. Water is generally non toxic, essential even, so drinking it is not stupid.

    Frankly it's understandable ignorance, I know it's possible to experience water intoxication and yes to kill yourself by really screwing the electrolyte balance but I have no idea what volumes of water would be required. And yeah, putting some salt tablets into the water would probably have saved her life so isn't the liability on the party organising the competition?

    --
    Deleted
  102. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McDonalds knew their old cup design was defective. McDonalds had received hundreds of reports of people injuring themselves due to the defective cup design (they made the styrofoam too flexible - flimsy lesser material saved them money - and thus even in careful hands it would bend spilling hot coffee everywhere). McDonalds internal documents showed they did a cost-benefit analysis to fixing their faulty disposable coffee cup design. The internal documents showed McDonalds' knowledge and disregard for the harm caused by their faulty product. McDonalds made a business decision to not correct its faulty coffee cup design. The person who finally sued them for the injuries sustained due at least in part to the faulty coffee cup design (these are the facts as the jury observed them to be) only asked for less than $20,000 dollars in directly-related medical bills to be paid (for the 3rd degree burns and skin grafts necessary due to the faulty coffee cup design). McDonalds chose not to pay the small amount being asked and thus the attorneys she hired properly asked for a much greater amount to cover legal expenses, pain, suffering, medical bills, loss work, wages, et cetera and also to punish McDonalds for not correcting the faulty coffee cup design McDonalds knew about, could have corrected, and by doing so could have prevented the injuries these people suffered due to its faulty product.

    Food suppliers should be sued if they put substances with no nutritional value in the food they supply and those substances contribute directly to the development of disease conditions.

  103. Sounds like she didn't follow the golden rule. by DeltaHat · · Score: 1

    One half to three quarters canteen par hour, not to exceed twelve canteens per day!

  104. Good God, Guys by mqduck · · Score: 0, Troll

    "Person does something, dies." darwinaward!!!

    Slashdotters are fucking assholes.

    (Slashtotter points out that other Slashdotters are fucking assholes, get's modded Troll)

    --
    Property is theft.
  105. Water Poisoning by Eun-HjZjiNeD · · Score: 1

    It amazes me that hyperhydroxia is not known.

    Think about it. The bodies makeup is primarily water. Add more water and complications can arise that are potentially fatal.

    The host of the competition IS at FAULT for her DEATH.

    There is NO REASON this should have happened. A little research and time spent could have found that this competition COULD BE FATAL to participants.

    Why would they NOT be held RESPONSIBLE for her DEATH when a bar owner is RESPONSIBLE for the SAFETY of its customers after a night of consuming alcohol?

    --
    ..::ALWAYS : watching::..
  106. There is a middle voice by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sorry, may be wrong here, but I thought passive (voice) verbs occurred when the subject of the sentence was not the one committing the action. To say that, "She died." is to say that she was the one undertaking the dying action, which is an action

    "She died" is middle voice, as are many other intransitive verbs in English. The active and passive voices of this clause are "She killed" and "She was killed". The forms "killed" vs. "died" show suppletion per voice in the same way that "go" vs. "went" show suppletion per tense.

    1. Re:There is a middle voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I think "die" is generally analyzed as unaccusative (like "fall," etc.), not middle voice. Let me know if you think there's any evidence for a middle voice analysis. :) Middle voice is a very weird thing in English, and kinda hard to define clearly.

  107. Not only that, it is rare by wsanders · · Score: 1

    This was not some drunken frat boy drinking 5 gallons of water, by all accounts it was more like half a gallon. A freak accident. This is why the radio station has insurance.

    I suspect the press and ambulance-chasing lawyer scumbags (both civil and DAs) are going to pile on this cluster-fuck like flies on a turd, when it turns out she was anorexic, or had some other health issues. I drink a half gallon some days after lunch myself, sitting on my ass at my desk, and a gallon or more when I'm active. When you have a colonscopy, you have to drink 1 gallon of laxative in an hour, although it's laced with electrolytes.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
    1. Re:Not only that, it is rare by Babbster · · Score: 1

      It was still a freak accident that would not have occurred but for the encouragement of the radio station. Maybe if radio content didn't suck so hard, they wouldn't have to resort to unhealthy stunts in order to increase their ratings. In any case, while the contestants could certainly be smarter, the idiots who organized the event should have known better. How long does it take to consult a doctor who would tell them it was a shitty idea, anyway?

  108. Re:Call the Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having kids does not disqualify you from a Darwin Award. Most of you never read Origin of Species and don't understand how evolution works. SHUT UP!

  109. Dihydrogen monoxide by totallygeek · · Score: 1
    water poisoning isn't that well known.


    I believe it is time to expose this threat! Ban dihydrogen monoxide!

  110. health drinks by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    What about beer? I'm sure it's full of those electrodide thingys. I've always argued that beer was good for your health

  111. Complain to Their Advertisers by RedSynapse · · Score: 5, Informative
    The KDND website has a list of all the companies that advertise with them.

    I've put together the following email addresses of KDND's sponsors, so if you think that the folks at KDND are a bunch of negligent twits who probably don't deserve their advertising dollars then why not email these companies and let them know?

    Info@urban-body.com, hr@wyotech.com, smichaels@sierracollege.edu, foundation@sierracollege.edu, marc.goff@US.REDBULL.COM, cs_online@albertsons.com, lgradisher@jewels.com, mediarelations@officedepot.com, communityrelations@officedepot.com, corpcsf@wellsfargo.com, home.pa-newsroom.168d00@statefarm.com, admin@PowerTripBev.com, kburns@ckr.com, chopkins@ckr.com, customerservice@partsamerica.com, oshgift@osh.com, customerservice@tillys.com, info@heald.edu, info@louderlaw.com, dale@sleeptrain.com, webmaster@NissanUSA.com, joseph.l.goode@bankofamerica.com You can also contact KDND's general sales manager at fhormell@entercom.com

    1. Re:Complain to Their Advertisers by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Arg

      I hate this kind of crap. Are we all children who need corporate guidance and someone to blame everytime we f*ck up? The woman did something stupid. Most likely out of ignorance. The station did something stupid, most likely out of ignorance. Who's at fault. THE WOMAN. It was her body,and her DECISION. If some maliciousness on the part of the station could be proven, maybe things would be different, but as it stands, a group of ignorant people did something stupid and one of them died. They all freely chose what they were doing.

      Personally, I don't want any company protecting me from myself. For that, I have myself, and some scientifically based government warnings and programs. I'm all for certain types of warnings: "This may be radioactive" etc. . But only for things which I would have no reasonable way of detecting myself, especially without expensive equipment. Drinking too much water is hazardous? Well, duh! So is consuming too much ketchup, or hair, or heroin. This is common sense: consuming pretty much anything can be dangerous if you consume too much of it. What kind of sorry world do we live in where people don't realize that? If the station does get sued, I hope they win. The last thing we need in this world is a bunch of self-serving ass-coverers trying to protect us from ourselves. Really, government has gone too far in this regard as well, but there is still a nugget of credibility, and at least they are theoretically under OUR control.

      This stuff makes me so mad I could spit. I better call Samsung, though, and make sure they think it's safe for me to spit in front of my monitor. Sigh.

    2. Re:Complain to Their Advertisers by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      The woman did something stupid. Most likely out of ignorance. The station did something stupid, most likely out of ignorance. Who's at fault. THE WOMAN. It was her body,and her DECISION. If some maliciousness on the part of the station could be proven, maybe things would be different, but as it stands, a group of ignorant people did something stupid and one of them died.

      I think the station should pay some sort of restitution to the woman's family. Not as a result of a lawsuit, but something like: "we fucked up, we're good guys, we'll do our best to make sure this lady's kids are taken care of until they're 18." Also, if the DJ was warned by a nurse that the contest could be dangerous, maybe he should have had someone research it (I'm assuming the studio has 'net access) before continuing and/or sending the contestants home. The DJ is not liable for malicious homicide, but he may be liable for negligence resulting in death.

      -b.

    3. Re:Complain to Their Advertisers by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      A barbeque joint couldn't put cyanide in the hotsauce, mention it on the ingredients list, and get away with it (in civil court)--even if they didn't know cyanide was poisonous.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
    4. Re:Complain to Their Advertisers by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      Although I do feel action must be taken, I believe that you should at least give the radio station a chance to react to this.

      This should be researched properly, and the radio station should of course pay their dues regarding this issue, and as I don't know whether they're honourable and a respectful station or not, I can't say whether they'll do the right thing and settle this to the satisfaction of all parties.. or not.

      If they do, then there's no need I feel to reprimand them by emailing their advertisers, they should then rather be applauded for helping the poor family in a tragic situation which no one wanted to happen.

      If they don't, then that email list is gold, and you should use it.. just remember, if you send a mass-email, put the email list into BCC.

      K.

  112. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  113. Re:Call the Darwin awards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never heard of it until a year or so back. Came up in a story about a D.C. police officer on bike patrol who killed himself doing it. It's not super-obscure, but it's not something you're warned about either. You have to actually look to learn this sort of thing.

  114. Wikipedia is not always up by tepples · · Score: 1

    I think I read that most of the stuff in answers.com was ripped from a earlier version of Wikipedia, so linking to both is redundant in many cases.

    Once, I was posting a comment, wanted to support my article with background, saw that Wikipedia was giving server errors, and linked to a mirror instead. A reply accused me of shilling for the mirror.

  115. well-known in sports by peter303 · · Score: 1

    First noted in marathon race deaths and summer football practices. These two sports now train coaches and players to prevent this.

  116. She only drank about 2 litres by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    TFA says a bit over a half gallon. Assuming US gallons thats approx 2 litres. Not an excessive amount really. I've often glugged that in a one hour period though that was while doing a lot of hard physical work).

    Perhaps this is linked to what this woman typically drank. If she normally drank Coke, coffee etc, then I guess drinking a large amount of striaght water could come as a shock to the system.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:She only drank about 2 litres by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      Not really, actually.

      Water intoxication is a strange thing.

      See, it's all about electrolytes in your body. If she normally drank things loaded with crap and junk and a lot of salt, she'd be able to slam down a lot of water.

      My guess? She was a low / no sodium fanatic.

      I did a bit of digging about this a while ago (because over the summer I was working in 100-degree-plus heat). If you have a lot of sodium and other electrolytes in your body, you will dehydrate faster, but you also can REhydrate faster without danger. Low electrolytes, you can survive with a lower total volume of water in your body, but you become very susceptable to water intoxication when you try to rehydrate.

      Basically, if you're in the heat, if you're sweating a lot, if you'll wind up gorging on water at some point.. eat salty foods. Yes, the salt "dehydrates" you, but it makes it so that you are able to hold a greater quantity of water in your body safely. And since you sweat the salt out anyway.. it's really actually very critical, and healthy.
      Low sodium diets should be ONLY for those with serious hypertension, blood pressure type issues (which also means they limit their physical activity), and for those with such a low level of physical activity that it's probably unhealthy how much they don't move. Aside from that? Eat salt. If you eat more salt, just GET SOME EXERCISE, IT'S GOOD FOR YOU.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    2. Re:She only drank about 2 litres by ubergenius · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, but sadly I've already posted in this forum. So, instead of modding you up, I'll just say: Bravo! I'm tired of hearing the "sale is evil!" crap that a tremendous number of people perpetrate.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    3. Re:She only drank about 2 litres by nickyj · · Score: 1

      Actually sodium isn't the only thing you need, magnesium is another mineral you need if you are hydrating a lot. The wikipedia entry is pretty spot on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

      2 liters/hour could kill you if you have low sodium.
      3 liters/hour could kill the average person.

      What the radio station should have done is have the contestants drink Gatorade, not water. Less of a chance of water intoxication, but the possibility is still there. I'm pretty sure they didn't consult a doctor about the dangers of their contest.

      --
      Causing Chaos Everywhere,
      Nik J.
      The strange world of a loner, in a populous city, drowning in society
  117. McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit by ZipK · · Score: 1

    "People bringing cases against McDonald's because ... they spilled their hot coffee on themselves are frivoulous at best."

    Except that McDonald's had already settled many such lawsuits in the past, and their analysis suggested the low frequency of scalded customers (and requisite payouts) didn't merit a change in business practice -- even though they were aware it would lead to additional burns. Given that McDonald's had decided this was a cost of doing business, perhaps the lawuit wasn't entirely frivoulous.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's _Restaurants.

  118. Lesson never learned by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    This woman never learned what most children learn. You can die from holding it in to long.

    --
    \
  119. It's what killed Leah Betts... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

    Despite all the noise made by her parents about the evils of drugs, what really killed Leah Betts was the misinformation she'd been given that if she took ecstasy she needed to drink a lot of water. She drank about a gallon and a half, and died.

  120. Person responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This title is completely ridiculous. It's sensationalist and makes it look like someone died using the Wii. The womans death has nothing to do with a Wii, it could have been a competition for anything.

    What would you say? If they'd said "Woman dies in water-drinking competition", that's sensationalist, too.

    She could have been of either sex, and the drinking competition could have been using any liquid. Or overdosing on anything. And the competition isn't relevant either: she'd be just as dead if she did it in the privacy of her own home.

    So "woman", "water", "drinking", and "competition" are irrelevant.

    When it comes right down to it, only "Person Dies" is unbiased. If all the headlines here were like that ("Company releases product", "Person makes statement"), nobody would read slashdot.

  121. That's What THEY Want You to Think by Greyfox · · Score: 0, Troll

    Water never hurt anyone before they started putting flouride in it! This is just more proof that the Communists are still alive and well and are still plotting our destruction! We must protect our purity of essence!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  122. Excessive consumption?? A quart an hour. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quart an hour doesn't seem like execessive water consumption to me. I wouldn't have been concerned about water intoxication at that rate of consumption.

    A physician in Iowa. (And proud to be in the state that's got Microsoft in court!)

  123. I wonder why.. by rainer_d · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...water bottles in the US of A don't carry some sort of fancy warning label like "Drinking to much water can kill you".

    --
    Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    1. Re:I wonder why.. by IMightB · · Score: 1

      You know before someone thinks that this is a good idea I'd just like to state that I'm in favor of REMOVING the warning labels on most items, for the specific purpose of letting "Darwin sort 'em out" There are just too many stupid people making it to breeding age these days.

  124. It's NOT a bug ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just need to execute it enough times until the defect "crashes" itself out.

  125. Waiver only covered publicity, not medical issues by blorg · · Score: 1

    ...according to this article. Indeed, a nurse called during the contest to warn that what they were doing was dangerous and was dismissed by the DJs.

  126. Re:They should have... SODIUM/KIDNEYS by neurocutie · · Score: 1
    Btw, I still think this is insane. The body should just pass any water it doesn't need straight to the bladder. You'd think it would just stay in your stomach if your bladder was full and you were holding it but apparently it somehow goes somewhere else and kills you. I still think that's a little iffy because it just doesn't make sense.
    Methinks you should learn just a Wii-bit more about how your own body physiology works...

    Water *can't* stay in your stomach waiting for your bladder to be emptied. There is no such mechanism.

    There *is* no direct path between your stomach and your bladder.

    You *can't* pass pure water. Not through your bladder anyways, through your colon perhaps when it is malfunctioning...

    You need sodium to *pump* water out of your system, into your bladder. Ergo, you drink too much water, your sodium stores get depleted as your kidneys try to get rid of all that water, and whole lot of bad things happen as your sodium concentration goes down (due to more water and flushing out sodium) (e.g. your entire nervous system depends on sodium to generate electrical responses, muscles need sodium too, indeed ALL cells need sodium, remember we evolved from the oceans filled with salt water)...

  127. Hydrogen Hydroxide dangers by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    And the terrorists, they use it too. As part of increased security after 9/11 they've banned people from bringing the stuff onto planes.

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  128. Re:Somethings wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BAWLS, if it like most other energy drinks (redbull, etc), contains large amounts of sodium.

    The sodium is what keeps you from dying.

    That's why sports drinks (filled with sodium and sugar) exist.

    I don't even want to think about what kind of health problems you'd get if you tried to live on Redbull but you wouldn't die of sodium deficiency and sports drinks like Gatorade you can live indefinitely on without any food so they are better than water. Of course this also means if you don't exercise at all and eat a lot it'll make ya fat...

  129. This just in... by trekrem · · Score: 1

    Initial reports from the White House suggest this was not terrorist related.

  130. Idiot by smoker2 · · Score: 1

    See title.
    (no I won't submit - do something stupid for a fucking toy - duh!)

  131. Not Wii's fault by Vacardo · · Score: 1

    It's not Nintendo's fault for naming their system after a phallus-related substance (and making a similar-shaped controller, to boot) - it's the radio station's for not consulting numerous doctors if there were any health risks to drinking gallons of water.

  132. THe next thing.. by JustNiz · · Score: 0

    will be warning placards on water supplies and bottles.

    This ranks up there with the stupid woman who sued and won beacuse her microwave didn't have a sticker saying not to put pets in it. She tried to dry her poodle in the microwave and it exploded.

    1. Re:THe next thing.. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      I mean...the poodle exploded not the microwave.(well, more like inflated and ruptured I guess).

    2. Re:THe next thing.. by risk+one · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that one never happened: Microwaved Pet Legend

  133. Hang the DJ by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    Found in the local newspaper of the dead contestant:

    "Two years ago a 21-year-old fraternity pledge at California State University, Chico, died after a night of hazing during which he drank excessive amounts of water. Four members of the fraternity later pleaded guilty to charges including involuntary manslaughter."

    Oh - they are going to fry! Hey - make a contest of it. Winner gets to pull the lever!

    BZZZZZT!

    Yuk yuk - morning jocks die! Die die die! I want to see your eyeballs explode and finger your entrails!

    1. Re:Hang the DJ by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Oh - they are going to fry! Hey - make a contest of it. Winner gets to pull the lever!

      Manslaughter isn't capital murder, AFAIK - it carries something like 5 or 10 years in prison maximum. As far as frying, I think California uses the gas chamber. So it'll be more like gagging to death, perhaps more appropriate considering the lady's manner of death.

      -b.

    2. Re:Hang the DJ by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      That's it..... blame other people because a stupid person (or people) died in a contest where they were participating 100% VOLUNTARILY, AT THEIR OWN HANDS. The dimwit in California wanted to get into a club and the other radio show contestant wanted a Wii. This is Darwin at work. Stupid people who make stupid choices and die because of them are their own fault, no other peoples.

      See my other post about the California student. I don't feel like re-hashing the whole thing again.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    3. Re:Hang the DJ by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Manslaughter - since you're not to up on it check out:

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

      You're fucking retarded enough to get sent up for it. Please - make a contest that kills some people - and get anal raped in jail. It's FUN!

    4. Re:Hang the DJ by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      No what's fucking retarded is not setting up the contest, but being the idiot that actualy competes in such an contest and puts your life up on the line for a fraternity membership or video game platform. I have plety of poisons for my garden in my tool shed. Yes, I have them. But I am not responsible for the adult who drinks them just because they want to win something arbitrary. By the way, Wikipedia is about as far from a legal reference as you can get. The current manslaughter statutes are just another way for people, and the families of people, who should have been killed off by evolution along time ago to blame others for that individuals stupid choice. I have a contest for people: If you can drink 30 gallons of water in 30 minutes while doing calisthenics, I'll buy you any car of your choice. Now who's the idiot in this scenario: Me for setting up the contest, or the idiot who trys to do it? Like I said before, the current manslaughter statutes are a way for truly retarded people to blame others for their bad choices. And no family wants to admit and understand that the individual made the conscience choice, of their own free will, to participate in such a stupid stunt. No family wants to call, or admit, a deceased loved one made a bad choice and ultimately paid for it. People who make such horrible choices DESERVE to suffer the consequences, and are just as much idiots as people who smoke and now are stunned to learn they have cancer. If you do something that is stupid, and die in the process, it's YOUR fault. "You're fucking retarded enough to get sent up for it. Please - make a contest that kills some people - and get anal raped in jail. It's FUN!" -----Is this supposed to be a zinger, or something intelligent? Unfortunately for the rest of humanity, the woman was able to pass her genes on by having children before the contest. Hopefully, you haven't been able to.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    5. Re:Hang the DJ by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we have the gas chamber here in California, but nobody uses it because there are numerous lawsuits over it's "cruelty" to the condemned. Apperently, It's cruel to gas people who kidnap, rape, and murder people. Should cruelty be a concern when the condemned serial killer kidnaps, rapes, and murders his victims? I don't think so, but that is my opinion. If execution should be outlawed, so should the relatively comfy living conditions that inmates currently recieve. If convicted murderers and rapists were spared the death penalty, and commuted to life in prison, then they should not be afforeded the amenities that they are currently reciceving. Seeing as how the worst of society live in a place that has a higher standard of living conditions than honest, hardworking 'Average Joes' who live in West or East Oakland, Compton or Watts, then something is truly wrong with the prison system.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    6. Re:Hang the DJ by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

      Glad you're not a lawyer. You'd get people into the electric chair by the hour. "But your honor - it's all about Darwinism! Fuck the law, the person was stoopid!".

      Yeah - that'd go great.

      Speaking of Darwinism, isn't it time for you to leave the gene-pool now? Do the world a favor and stop your bloodline.

  134. The upside... by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    ...is that a large number of people will now know they can die from drinking too much water. If only she'd had a bag of Lay's or Frito's handy and the knowledge that eating them could have saved her life. There's a real irony...a situation where eating chips is good for you.

  135. WAR ON WATER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water, known as "W" on the street is a highly dangerous and addictive substance. When deprived of W for a substantial period of time (dependent upon food and sodium intake), the user experiences extreme cravings. Users have been known to travel long distances to acquire W. If deprived of W for too long, the user will die from lack of W. Users falling into pools of W have been known to drown. In many parts of the world, W is of questionable quality and users have died after drinking it (although not from the W itself, but from the bacterium/viruses which found a home in the sample of W). Users can overdose on W as it is known to flush helpful and critical electrolytes out of the user's system - symptoms are delirium, lack of coordination, slurring of the speech, unconsciousness, and death. Depending upon the temperature of the W, it can cause severe frostbite, hyperthermia, or death if too cold, or severe burns, hypothermia, or death if too hot.

    Scalding of W users is a common occurence when hot W is spilled onto the user during a moment of inattentiveness. Small children should be carefully supervised around W to prevent freezing, scalding, or drowning.

    Regulation of W is of critical importance and part of the President's War on *Some* Drugs. More information will be forthcoming in the near future. See your local chapter of WARE (Water Abuse Resistance Education) for advice on preventing addiction...

    1. Re:WAR ON WATER! by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      You got hypo- and hyperthermia round the wrong way.

      Hyperthermia is getting too hot, hypothermia is too cold.

      Otherwise I love your post.

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  136. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The people risked their own lives. Nobody risked it for them. So no, it's no more immoral than holding a marathon. You do know that people die in marathons, right?

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, fine. I was just trying to find out what kind of person you are. Now I know.

      Even dumb people should be protected from exploitation. This woman just tried to get her kids a Wii, maby she was poor and felt like her kids needed some fun in their sad lives. A radiostation choose to make som fun out of her and her kids misery.

      It is okay to make immigrants do disgusting things to get a green card? Exploitation and rediculing poor people seems like the right thing for the industrialised countries to do. All that freedom we have shouldn't have to be so boring.

  137. Encountered something similar by quirkyalone · · Score: 1

    I remember some years ago boys at my neighbourhood played footbal, and one of them became so thirsty afterwards, that he drank the full 1.5 litre bottle of water. Other guys considered this cool so they offered him to buy him a full pack of cigarettes if he manages to drink another 1 litre of water on the spot. He did, but soon afterwards he had got terrible stomachache and vomited quite nasty...it was not fun at all. He stayed alive, but from that encounter I remember drinking too much water is not a good idea.

  138. Everything can be dangerous when you over-do it by wikinerd · · Score: 1, Informative

    Anything can kill you if you over-do it, and water is no exception. The poor victim probably didn't know about electrolytes and why athletes drink isotonic drinks. I want to believe that the radio station competition's organisers were also unaware of water intoxication. However, this doesn't change the sad fact that ignorance about scientific facts led to the death of a mother.

    That's why America (and the world as well) must invest in higher-quality science education.

  139. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by DeathElk · · Score: 1

    IMHO, the Wii strap class action is a frivolous lawsuit, brought about by people wishing to shift blame for their own carelessness.

    In this case however, a woman, a mother of three, died most probably as a result of actions SHE WAS ENCOURAGED TO TAKE, by a commercial entity intent on self promotion. They had an obligation to ensure the instructions they gave to their contestants were not going to result in the harm of said contestants.

    There also are claims that a health professional contacted the station during the contest, advising of the dangers of excessive water consumption. This advice was ignored and possibly derided by the company's representatives.

    If there is a civil claim made, I doubt any court would consider this a frivolous lawsuit. Indeed I would not be surprised if there is a criminal investigation.

  140. What about the children? by bladx · · Score: 1

    Has anyone here thought about what the children are going through right now (and in the future)? This is not the right type of article to post on Slashdot... no one cares about people here.

    1. Re:What about the children? by bladx · · Score: 1

      *the children of the mother that died.

  141. This is all Nintendo's fault by yeremein · · Score: 1

    I mean, I knew "Wii" was a stupid name... but I didn't know it was deathly stupid. Until now.

  142. It's murder, if not 1st degree then some degree. by mrmeval · · Score: 0

    The radio station is a murderer. I'm damn tired that when a corporation kills people it gets a slap on the wrist. I want everyone in it tried for murder and their assets taken to pay for this mess.

    I want the corporation tried for murder, thier rights as a corporation recinded and the assets to be sold to pay for this mess. Then put a moratorium on that frequency allocation to be held without corprate use for 10 years, it may be used for any other purpose except for it's use by any corporation whether thay are for-profit or not for profit.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  143. What did most do when they read this? by saintory · · Score: 1

    If you are like me, you looked up "water intoxication" under WikiPedia to see how it happens and just learn more about it. While reading it, I then went back to the original article. What I found most interesting was the similarities between the article's description of "water intoxication" and Wikipedias. Here, take a look:

    Article
    Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is upset by a rapid intake of water.
    Wikipedia
    Water intoxication (also known as hyperhydration or water poisoning) is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain function that results when the normal balance of electrolytes in the body is pushed outside of safe limits by a very rapid intake of water.[1]

    Maybe I've been out of college for some time and the rules may have changed however this appears to be nearly 75% of the content of a reference that isn't cited. How often does this happen? What are the rules when you write an article and you use a source like Wikipedia? I mean, Wikipedia cited their source. Are news reporters exempt from this same citing procedure?

    1. Re:What did most do when they read this? by ambrosen · · Score: 1

      Well, no, there's no rules on citation for newspapers. They're giving information to their readers on trust.

      However, copying verbatim from other sources is a given in most local journalism. It's normally from press releases rather than Wikipedia, and of course, unlike Wikipedia, press releases are free to redistribute with no copyright notice. So, this article is in breach of the GNU FDL.

  144. Dying for a wee? by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    I wonder how many times she said that before she actually did... Or perhaps that should be "Oh god, I'm dying for a wii!"

  145. Thank you! by deesine · · Score: 1
    I have kidney stones and so, I drink lot's of water everyday. If I don't, I get the pain. Lately I've not been buying the packs of bottled water: laziness and cost. I've been chugging the tap water instead.

    Sometimes I do set a large glass aside so as to let some of the chlorine evaporate. Not always, and especially not in the last month. Result: gut problems. I knew about the issue, but after several years I became...ok, well, stupid. And here I was starting to adjust my diet in reflex!

    So, thank you very much for the reminder and the boiling tip! My so and friends also thank you, for the soon to be diminished amount of foul odor in my general vicinity.

    --
    damaged by dogma
    1. Re:Thank you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Well I'm told by sibling posts to yours that it's not actually true, that (in theory at least) the chlorine is no more long before it could have any effect. Personally I'd like to see study results (theory and reality don't always match up like we expect them to), but don't really have time to do a thorough hunt at the moment.

      So yeah, treat what I said as unknown certainty, use words like "maybe" and "might" if passing on the information, but if any of it does help you, then I shall be very happy, whatever the underlying chemistry reasons for it are :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Thank you! by deesine · · Score: 1
      I read his post. And I know for a fact that the chlorine levels in the water from our local well gets well above 2ppm, sometimes as high as 15ppm. So I guess he was only off by a factor of 7.5.

      Also, is everyone's intestinal acid levels the same? Does everyone's intestinal system react the same way to (albeit minor amounts of) chlorine? Questions.

      Maybe a pedantic intestinal tract specialist will come by and answer...

      --
      damaged by dogma
    3. Re:Thank you! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yeah... I didn't want to just write it off as untrue, figured there's probably reasons out there not to, so just gave it a question mark for time being.

      "So I guess he was only off by a factor of 7.5"

      Seems like a good reason to me! I'm currently inclined to believe that it may not be as simple as my explanation, or even that at all, but there's bound to be an effect. Even if the chlorine does react with other things before it can reach your gut, it's still reacting with things! Chemical reactions have a tendancy to have consequences, and in the body, they're mostly extremely unpredictable due to the huge number of variables, that may show up in only 1 in 1000 people... but if you're that 1, you'd wanna know. I guess you could experiment yourself; a week with scrubbed water, and a week with straight. No matter what anyone says, if it improves things you for, that's gotta be a good thing.

      What country are you in btw?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  146. Medical advice from PepsiCo ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    "This is why they reccommend when you have a fever you drink Gatorade or some other sport drink."

    Gatorade for a fever? That's a new one for me. I always thought it was chicken soup.


    Maybe the "they" in the GP is PepsiCo? ;-)

  147. Re:Call the Darwin awards by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    If you can't figure out why a mother of three is ineligible for the Darwin Awards, I think you may need to climb out of the gene pool yourself.

    Since you failed to narrow the "mother" category to "post-menopausal mother" I think you may have some climbing to do as well. ;-)

  148. isn't Overrated even easier? by doti · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I don't remember ever seeing an "Overrated" mod when I'm meta-moding.
    Don't these get meta-moderated?

    --
    factor 966971: 966971
  149. who's stupid? by 123beer · · Score: 1

    The radio producers, knowing their legal liability regarding contest participants, who didn't even think to ask a doctor "might this kill somebody?" Or the woman, knowing the the radio producers' legal liability, who didn't imagine that they would be so stupid as to hold the contest without knowing that it was safe?

  150. Re:Scumbag by x2A · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "You find this so funny you pissed yourself?"

    Actually it was just another play on the 'wii' bit... seriously, you can't actually pass out from too much irony ya know.

    "Then you moan and cry about the moderation you got from your sorry ass comment?"

    Troll, flamebait, overrated, I would have been fine with. But off topic? It's just not true.

    "I hope when a moment of extreme sorrow comes into your life"

    Been there, done that. Everyone deals with things in different ways dude, and death, being one of the hardest things to deal with, introduces even wider ways of being dealt with than most other things we experience. You can't spend your whole life crying, you get nowhere, and may as well not be alive yourself. So you laugh, about some funny word or whatever, it doesn't matter, and hope it does make you insensitive, at least a little more than you'd usually be, because you can't cope if you soak up every little bad thing that happens.

    It doesn't make you an arsehole, it just means you're trying to survive the best you can in a world where shit happens.

    You'll understand as you get older. Or you'll get crushed by the weight of the world.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  151. This sort of thing ... by Duc+de+Montebello · · Score: 1

    Will give the Wii a bad name.

    --
    "If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
  152. Objection! by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    They went to the trouble of putting out waivers. If they didn't know there were going to be medical consequences, why would they have drawn these up and required they be signed? The fact that they went to the trouble suggests a willful disreguard for human life, likely grounds for a more serious charge.

    IANAL, but I have played Phoenix Wright ;)

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:Objection! by ocbwilg · · Score: 1

      They went to the trouble of putting out waivers. If they didn't know there were going to be medical consequences, why would they have drawn these up and required they be signed? The fact that they went to the trouble suggests a willful disreguard for human life, likely grounds for a more serious charge.

      From the article that I cited:

      Sherrod told The Bee that a deejay rebuffed the nurse and that the contestants signed waivers that addressed only publicity issues and made no mention of health or safety concerns.

      Sounds like not only did they not know that it was potentially harmful, but that whatever lawyer or wannabee lawyer who drew up the waivers didn't know what they were doing either. All in all, I'd say that the radio station is screwed about 20 different ways. But then IANAL either.

    2. Re:Objection! by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

      Not at all. In the US they make you sign waivers for everything.

      In any courtroom outside of "Phoenix Wright" it shows that the radio station cared enough to warn the contestants of danger. They fact that she "knew the risks" going into the contest (she read and signed the waiver) means that the radio station will probably get away fairly easy.

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    3. Re:Objection! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Any idiot with even the smallest shred of common sense knows that this is potentially harmful, regardless of who tells them otherwise. It's like the people who smoked for years because doctors and tobacco companies told them it was healthy and safe. Anybody with common sense would have been able to put 2 and 2 together and realize that there is NO WAY that smoking can be even remotely safe.

      Question: What kills people who die as a result of fires, but aren't burned? Smoke inhalation! Why is it hard to breath when walking through smoke? Because inhaling smoke is hazardous! Yet, millions of Americans managed to figure it out without lighting up OR sticking their head down the chimney.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    4. Re:Objection! by electronerdz · · Score: 1

      That is a bad analogy. If you breath in smoke, you cough. It is your body telling you that it doesn't like it. If you drink a glass of water, you don't choke. You body needs it. It just doesn't need too much of it. Doctor's and water bottle companies tell me to drink water. Are you telling me it is not safe?

      --
      Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
    5. Re:Objection! by ubergenius · · Score: 1

      Your analogy doesn't make much sense, however, because smoking literally has no benefits whatsoever, and has very immediate and lasting physical detriments to make it obvious to the user that something is amiss. Water, however, is almost always beneficial and often creates GOOD feelings. Ever been exhausted after some physical activity on a hot day, and guzzled a glass of water? It's refreshing, invigorating and often creates more energy.

      Water IS good for you, but just like EVERYTHING that is good for you, too much makes it bad for you. Everything in excess can be dangerous.

      --
      Student Manager - Take control of your education!
    6. Re:Objection! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      If you drink too much water, you eventually will throw up. Similarly, if you drink too much beer, you will throw up as well. However, with alcoholic beverages, the loss of coordination speeds up the vomiting process due to the resulting nausea.

      I' not telling you that drinking water is not safe, but I am telling you that drinking too much water is not safe. Regardless of who tells you to drink water, drinking too much will cause you to throw up, experience severe stomach pains, bladder pressure/need to urinate, bladder pain, and other very noticiable symptoms.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    7. Re:Objection! by Rakarra · · Score: 1
      If you drink too much water, you eventually will throw up.

      Not everyone knows that.

      I' not telling you that drinking water is not safe, but I am telling you that drinking too much water is not safe.

      Again, seriously, not that many people actually know this. It's not that common knowledge, though it probably should be.

    8. Re:Objection! by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Not everybody knows that drinking too much water will cause you to throw up, if you do decide to drink too much water, you will throw up regardless of if you knew it or not.

      Also, just because someone is lacking a bit of common sense doesn't indemnify or absolve themselves from bearing the responsibility of the results of their own actions.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  153. As long as they get locked up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's criminal I know that much, I don't give a feck about laws and what not, but there actions, the lack of any forethought to bring in a doctor or EMTs to the event... Yes it was a stupid thing, so I'm thinking the person responsible can see a couple of months jail time and the radio station be fined to fuck, or even charged as an entity and have it's cooperate charter revoked or suspended for a similar term.

    *phews* Sorry, anger got to me there, but people need to learn the lesson of responsibility sometime, all too often sponsors, investors and companies in general just don't get it.

    1. Re:As long as they get locked up by daverabbitz · · Score: 1

      Having a doctor at the competition wouldn't of helped. Shed died after the competition in her own home.

      --
      What could be better than a jet powered motorcycle? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8l6GTHLSWE
  154. you make me mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love to watch skaters bite it hard on a rail. The more they mash thier little berries the less chance they will reproduce. This one time I saw this idiot actually pop his gourd, obviously he very nearly died. Coming out of the hospital they ask him if he'll wear a helmet from now on and he tells them hell no. That's just not the way he rolls.

    A close second to stupid skaters doing insanely stupid things is redneck cowbobs riding bulls. I friggin' love to see cowbobs get trampled. I come out of my seat hootin' and hollerin' every time. That 8 seconds dude that died doing it, he knew what time it was. Climbing on the back of a bull you just kicked in the nuts or jumping down a flight of concrete stairs sliding down the steel rail balanced on a little board, those are things you know are going to end badly so they feel great if somehow they cheat death or dismemberment.

    Getting to the point, I feel ya brother. When stupid peopld do stupid things I feel like they get what's coming. I even greatly enjoy watching them get it.

    Yet, drinking water is something everyone does everyday. This very young woman that died was a mother of 3, what must mathmatically be, very small children. She entered the contest to win the Wii for them. She was drinking water, the stuff everyone is always saying you should drink a lot of everyday. This is plain and simple a horrific tradgedy.

    When some piece of shit like you starts spouting about how she got what she deserved, well, I can only hope you share your opinion to as many people as possible in person. You'll get what you deserve too.

    1. Re:you make me mad by Viceroy+Potatohead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "When some piece of shit like you starts spouting about how she got what she deserved, well, I can only hope you share your opinion to as many people as possible in person. You'll get what you deserve too."

      Nice. Truly. If you had read what I wrote, you'd have noticed I mentioned nothing about whether the woman deserved it. I said she did something stupid, which I think is hardly disputable. And I said she did it, most likely, through ignorance. Whether that equates to her deserving death or not is a completely different issue. Whether anyone deserves to die due to stupid behaviour or ignorance is not something I'm even sure I have an opinion on.

      The point is: she freely chose to do something, and that thing was fatal. She should have known better for three reasons: Death by water consumption is not such an unheard of phenomenon, actually. I suspect most endurance athletes have heard of it, many medical people, and many livestock farmers as well. Not the majority by a long shot, but it's not exactly esoteric knowledge either. Secondly, it's just common sense that ingesting vast amounts of anything is dangerous, this should come as a surprise to no-one. Thirdly, our bodies have this amazing ability to signal us when we are consuming too much of something. Go try to drink a two litre bottle of water right now, you'll see what I mean. If she was so unaware of her body, she was being ignorant, if she was ignoring it, she was being stupid. Deservedness is irrelevant.

      Why the station should be considered more responsible than the woman herself, for what was happening in the woman, is truly beyond me. If we really needed to be shepherded away from behaving in such a stupid fashion, one would think our beaches, river banks, bathtubs, and swimming pools would be littered with the bodies of people who lacked such sense. I haven't noticed that happening. Is it unfortunate? Definitely! Is it tragic? Definitely. It's too bad for her, her kids, and everyone else who cared about her. That doesn't mean the station should be held responsible for a bad decision that the woman made. The woman made a bad decision, a stupid decision, and unfortunately died because of it.

      It may feel good to blame the station, but it isn't exactly rational. If they should have researched it more, why not the woman? Why is the station more responsible for finding out the dangers of what the woman puts in her mouth than the woman herself? It's really taking "save us from ourselves" a little too literally.

    2. Re:you make me mad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Nintendo should be held responsible for calling it the Wii to make people hold their Pee and making the console such a device that people would hold their wii-wii to get their hands on one.

  155. "8 glasses a day" is a myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That "8 glasses a day" figure was made up entirely out of thin air. I imagine it dates back to the various health food crazes of the early 20th century -- when breakfast cereals started out as health fads and so on. It came out as part of some half-baked "eat to be well" plan or other, about on the level of every other faddish diet idea you see on 30-minute TV ads, and it just stuck in the popular consciousness.

    Nutritionists have no particular reasons for saying that's the recommended amount, at any rate. It's a ton of water, that's for sure.

  156. Fear factor by dheera · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of Fear Factor, the TV show that does so many inhumane things to their contestants (like put them among poisonous snakes, thousands of bees, tarantulas, make them eat infectious things that aren't food, and so on). I can't believe so many people in the world go through so much pain for the money. Either (1) you are rich and don't need the money and shouldn't be doing that to your body OR (2) you are poor, in which case it's such a horrible thing that TV shows put such people through so much torture with a money reward. It's like saying if you have a 1 in 10 chance of getting shot, and a 9 in 10 chance of winning a million dollars, would you do it? I'm sure some of the sadly half-dead people in Darfur would happily take on that challenge. But at the same time it's inhumane to not just give them $100k each instead of putting them through torture. Bottom line, I think the radio station is at fault for even having such a competition. Among all the other crappy things this country regulates, why can't it regulate TV and radio shows first, at least to the point where contestants should NEVER be even asked to do anything harmful to their bodies?

  157. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ever have children I think you'll understand that there is no humor in the thought of children losing their parents.

    I apologize to you. I definitely posted out of anger and it was not constructive. The thought of that family suffering such a terrible blow was eating at me and when I saw your comment I came unglued. I know how easy it is to casually say something without really considering the implications of your words. I just did that myself and I normally try very hard to keep that from happening.

    I should have used positive and constructive words to share with you my viewpoint so that you might better understand the full repercussion of your words. A rush to anger is the worst thing to do and all too common in the world today. It certainly does not foster enlightenment, quite contrarily it breeds defensiveness and retaliation.

    1. Re:BS by x2A · · Score: 1

      My story's already similar enough. Three very young kids, one young parent taken, by cancer not console, but the effect's the same, and the damage after 20 years still very visible, so this "you might better understand" business is really misplaced. I know your reaction comes from misunderstanding, which is why I didn't jump on the insult or defensive wagon, but tried to explain, incidentally leading me exactly to where making jokes was to stop me from being.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:BS by tha_mink · · Score: 1

      Not to mention your defense should include the fact that he actually said....

      She wasn't a doctor, she didn't know the huge health risk involved with consuming mass quantities of water in a short period of time. Drinking water seems pretty safe to most people.

      Um...She trusted a wacky morning show with her health and lost. Sorry, more room for me. It's not like a tree fell on her. It wasn't an accident. She drank tons of water and didn't pee. Would we be having this discussion if she died from a burst bladder? I think not.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    3. Re:BS by x2A · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're unaware of health risks associated with something, then you're unaware that you're trusted your health to them.

      "Would we be having this discussion if she died from a burst bladder?"

      Oh there'd be SO more much ammo for jokes then *lol*

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:BS by dualityshift · · Score: 0

      Even my 8-year old knows the dangers of water intoxication. The fact that she didn't know is irrelavant. The fact an entire crew for a broadcast radio program didn't know is fully relevant. Any lawsuit derived from this act of stupdity is just, MHO. The general population can hurt themselves, it's their business, but this irresponsible behaviour by rado celebrities only strengthens my belief that a socety that looks at celebrties as all-knowing or wise, or above the masses is flawed from the foundation. We all get what we deserve. Darwin Award material at its best.

    5. Re:BS by x2A · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, this is gross negligence that has resulted in death. I'm not sure how much exactly she drank, but even if it was the high end of what's normally considered "safe", without doing a medical examination, you can't tell how somebody's going to react to something. Without testing their health beforehand, you've no idea what you're going to do to them playing with their internal chemistry like that.

      Maybe there should be a darwin awards for most stupid ways to kill someone?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  158. Re:Question: What if another liquid? (-ade) by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

    It probably wouldn't mess you up that badly, but this competition required you not use the bathroom. So, you wouldn't die from too much water, but you'd damage your kidneys and urinary system pretty badly.

  159. Re:"Sue into the poorhouse"? by physicsnick · · Score: 1

    I think it is very unfortunate that nobody stepped up and made people aware of the dangers of this event.

    That's the thing, someone DID step up. A nurse called in and explained to them that it was dangerous, and the DJs basically just told her she was crazy and hung up on her.

  160. How Much Is Too Much...? by Slugster · · Score: 1

    This incident generated a LOT of talk on many of the various athletic forums and newsgroups. Especially those activities like bicycling, where you have the potential capacity to carry a lot more than two liters of water.

    Most people who responded knew lots of facts of their performance and they knew lots of OTHER risks, but not very many seemed to be aware that drinking two liters of water [literally] at a sitting could kill a person.

    This is particularly sobering when you realize that the largest Camelback pack has a 100-oz bladder (3 liters), and especially sobering to me because when I go out on long rides, I will drink TWO of those bladders....
    ~

    1. Re:How Much Is Too Much...? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And you fill it with regular water? I always bring Gatorade when I go cycling.

    2. Re:How Much Is Too Much...? by Nutria · · Score: 1
      This is particularly sobering when you realize that the largest Camelback pack has a 100-oz bladder (3 liters), and especially sobering to me because when I go out on long rides, I will drink TWO of those bladders....

      But you perspired most of that water out, so your electrolyte balance didn't change as much as you think.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  161. She did NOT die from holding it by arete · · Score: 1

    She died from drinking pure water too fast screwing up her electrolytes. The holding it had nothing to do with it. Peeing as often as she wanted wouldn't have helped.

    It's not impossible to burst a bladder, but to my understanding usually it involves a sharp jab to the bladder while it's full.

    It's also not healthy to hold concentrated urine for long periods, esp for women, but that's not usually a problem that's related to drinking lots of water.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  162. If it's any consolation by TOOSuave · · Score: 1

    At least she didn't finish dead last...

  163. Audio Clip - was this funny? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This might be a little inappropriate, but does anyone have a clip of this contest? (Obviously this isn't a clip of her dying, which would be VERY inappropriate. But I'm trying to figure out if this contest was at least funny.)

    1. Re:Audio Clip - was this funny? by x2A · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how it began, but one of the contestants had to leave because he was starting to feel ill, and commented on how the others were starting to look pretty bad too. The woman who died left, (IIRC) drove home, which is where she died. I guess it wasn't very funny for most of it!

      I doubt anything will be made public (although may have to be if it ends up in court), although a hunt maybe in a few days on p2p networks might turn up someone who recorded and is sharing it.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  164. Odd peice of irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anyone else find it just slightly humorous that the last name of the woman who died this rather odd death was "Strange"?

  165. Digg... by sponga · · Score: 1

    Is the new kid on the block and usually get all the articles even before subscribers; in fact there are probably /. subscribers who submit articles to Digg. Notice I have run into a few articles I read on Digg a day before /. got them and they were Slashdotted/digged.

    We used to say it was "slashdotted"; but now we say it has been "Digged"

  166. A far cry from the PS3 violence! by SQLz · · Score: 1

    Nintendo fans are going to have to kill, maim, or otherwise brutalize a few more people if they want to reach PS3 status. Amatuers.

  167. Other medical problems by stapedium · · Score: 1

    I would bet the unfortunately lady had other medical problems that were either not diagnosed or ignored. Most likely she had kidney and cardiac problems. Unless you have kidney problems you would have to drink more than a half gallon of water per hour to develop hyponatremia, and even then people usually develop seizures quite a bit before cardiac arrest. While she may have not known about or ignored these problems, the radio station is gonna have a huge liability if they didn't ask her about them before the contest.

  168. Ever sat in a bathtub too long? by goodben · · Score: 1

    Ever soaked for too long and your fingers have gotten pruney? Now imagine that happening to all your cells. If your blood gets too high a concentration of water the extra gets drawn into your cells. Your brain does not like to swell. This is a concentration effect so your body can handle it pretty easily if it's spread out over time, especially if you're eating stuff as well or drinking things that are more than just pure water.

  169. Can we get a Wii for Tycho Brahe? by RainDaemon · · Score: 1

    cos, you know - he reeeeeeeaaaallly had to go...

  170. wtf they both should have known better. by luther349 · · Score: 0

    i guess not everyone knoes you can acully die of drinking to mutch water. you rety mutch drown yourself from the inside. yes the body will pass unneeded water when overhydrated but it will also pass the salts you need couse when you consume that mutch water the boydy is trying to pass it to quickly and cant make up for the loss of salts fast enough. i think the max is 1 liter you body can hold befor your crossing into the danger zone and it was dubble that. aculy dying of it is acully pretty rare you normaly will just get sick and your body will bascilty reject the water aka puking. but the lady probly felt sick and took meds to prevent that. if it was 2 liters of gaterade or something simler this probly would not of happond being sports drinks acully restore the salt levels why do you think in there ads they say its better then water couse it relly is if your consuming mass amounts like people who play sports.

  171. Not the first injury in a radio competition by alanw · · Score: 1

    In 1993, the Birmingham, UK, radio station BRMB was fined £ 15000 and had to pay "substantial" damages in a similar competition where the last person left sitting on a block of dry ice was the winner. Contestants suffered severe frostbite and required extensive skin grafts.

  172. Does not qualify for DA (Re:Killed??) by asb · · Score: 1

    The initial reaction is that it does not qualify for a Darwin Award. While it is commonly a "fun fact", the average Joe does not know that one can fatally overdose on water. However, because a nurse called an specifically warned the contestants about the dangers of consuming large amounts of water, it may qualify.

    If you read the article you will notice that the woman in question already had three children. Therefore her genes are already "in the pool" and thus she is not qualified for a Darwin award.

    --
    Antti S. Brax - Old school - http://www.iki.fi/asb/
  173. If the radio station was smart... by AriaStar · · Score: 1

    ...then the owners would have had the contestants sign liability releases.

    1. Re:If the radio station was smart... by somersault · · Score: 1

      If they were smart, they wouldn't have run this competition in the first place, or at least would have looked at the risks involved..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:If the radio station was smart... by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Bah - water is for little girls! THIS is what all radio stations should be sponsoring - go go corporate responsibility!

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

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  174. UPDATE - Show kicked off air by welshsocialist · · Score: 1

    The show that put on the "contest" has kicked off the air for now pending an investigation. A statement by the radio station is here. A news story from the local paper is here. (A reg is needed, it can be found in the normal place).

    While this is a good first gesture, it's not enough, for obvious reasons.

    --
    Support the Chagossians
    1. Re:UPDATE - Show kicked off air by ReptilianSamurai · · Score: 1

      BBC News article, the people responsible for this contest have been sacked. As they should be. I'm a little annoyed that the news headlines make this story seem like it's somehow the Wiis fault. It's not a story about the Wii, it's a story about an ill-advised radio show contest.

      --
      I installed Linux on a car, but it crashed due to bad drivers...
  175. And this make the slashdot pages because.... by RationalRoot · · Score: 1

    What is this a SLOW NEWS DAY

    --
    http://davesboat.blogspot.com/
  176. everyone whos had gym/health should know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone who's taken gym/pe/health, in grade school in America,
    should be very well aware of the fact that if you're going
    to drink a lot of water, you need to ingest salt as well.
    It seems to me like the DJs aren't the only ones on the hook for a lawsuit

  177. Re:Scumbag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "She wasn't a doctor, she didn't know the huge health risk involved with consuming mass quantities of water in a short period of time."

    Christ, how stupid must she have been?

    Everyone over here knows the dangers of too much water. Even kids do. And yet some woman with THREE kids is too dumb to have learned such a basic fact?

    I despair for the US, I really do.

  178. Not so fast by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    Many radio station contests are for prizes that are given to the radio station by the promoter/corporation/etc. It's entirely possible that Nintendo donated the Wii for the contest.

    Now if we assume that Nintendo gave the Wii to the station for the contest, maybe Nintendo knew what the contest would be and maybe they didn't.

    But if they gave the Wii to the radio station, and they knew what the contest would be, then they could have some legal exposure here.

    I have no idea of they donated the Wii or not, but I'm just presenting this as a scenario for how Nintendo could get dragged into this.

    What a stupid idea for a contest.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Not so fast by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      I don't know if the Wii was donated or not either, but I would suspect not. If Nintendo knew of the contest, it... just doesn't seem to be their image. I seriously doubt Nintendo would want to REINFORCE the rather old and annoying "Ha ha, Wii sounds like a synonym for urine!" joke.

      If Nintendo were to donate some systems, I would bet it wouldn't be a single unit. More like "1 in 500 boxtops wins a free Nintendo Wii, on specially marked boxes of Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs!" So... I can't prove it, but I seriously doubt it.

      And as much as I love my Wii, if that were my mother... I'd feel kinda guilty playing a system my mother DIED trying to get. But then again, wouldn't it be better to use it, to give her death some, albeit extremely trivial, significance? Either way, they're gonna need therapy someday...

  179. Re:Scumbag by tha_mink · · Score: 1

    I despair for the US, I really do.

    Allright c'mon. Don't despair for the US. There's stupid people everywhere. People in Spain let themselves be involved in a stampede of bulls. Surely, that's way dumber than a little water.

    --
    You'll have that sometimes...
  180. Good luck by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but IAAL(andlord) so I know a thing or two about civil law. The standard I've always had to deal with is "known or should have known", as applied to dangerous conditions on my properties. If there is a huge crack in one of my sidewalks, which is a tripping hazard, it's possible that I wouldn't know about it (I'm not at my properties every day or even every week), but I definitely should know about it since it's plain to see.

    Reports are coming in that medical professionals were calling the station in the middle of the contest, warning that drinking too much water will lead to serious illness and death. It's going to be hard for them to claim that they did not know, when there were medical professionals warning them, on-air, for the entire listening public to hear.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  181. Oh, the humanity! by DG · · Score: 1

    Best. WKRP. Reference. Ever.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  182. Apparently the story has already made it to Wiki.. by digitalgoddess · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia - under water intoxication On January 12, 2007, Jennifer Strange, a 28-year-old woman from Sacramento, California, was found dead in her home by her mother hours after trying to win a Wii game console in KDND 107.9 "The End" radio station's "Hold Your Wee for a Wii" contest, which involved drinking large quantities of water without urinating. Every 15 minutes contestants were given a bottle of water to drink. It is reported that original amounts were very small (250 mL, 8 fl. oz.) and the bottle size increased as contestants progressed. It should be noted though that this information is a preliminary finding, not an official determination. [7][8][9][10] another part of the article: Note that a person's innate sense of thirst is more sensitive to overall dehydration than to changes in electrolytes. Thus, it is possible to develop water intoxication while trying to satisfy thirst, if one drinks a great deal of water over a short period. A dangerous drop in electrolytes, such as the hyponatremia that leads to water intoxication, will not have any effect on thirst if one is sufficiently dehydrated. Initial symptoms typically include light-headedness, sometimes accompanied by nausea, vomiting, headache and/or malaise. - so she had to have had some idea that something was wrong pre-collapse

  183. Yup by sheldon · · Score: 1

    Guess that makes me at fault too, eh?

    Although I didn't know the name of the radio station, I simply heard that some station out in california was oging to run this contest. Considering I live 2000 miles east of their, I'm not a listener.

  184. Name change by McCaliber · · Score: 1

    If only Nintendo had kept the name Revolution for their new console. I wouldn't want to join a competition to see how long I could hold my urine, but I would totally enter to see how long I can stay in a centrifuge without passing out.

  185. Wiki as a source? by Taulin · · Score: 1

    oh great! Now people are using a public created site as official sources. Can't wiki be updated by anyone? I could write a fake article, and get it posted there. Wiki should be taken with a grain of salt. Other major publications, the ones that make money at least, at least have earnings to worry about to provoke somewhat of a fact check. When I see an article quote wiki, I just move on. I like wiki and everything, but it is for 'amusement only'.

  186. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'She died' is merely the active voice of the intransitive verb 'to die'. 'To kill' is a different verb entirely, not a different form of the same verb. To claim otherwise is to claim that everything that dies is killed.

    The example given in the wikipedia article is that a 'casserole cooked [...]'. The reason this phrase is semantically passive is that the casserole was in fact being cooked (by someone, or by heat if you will). The form, however, is active as the verb is put in a simple past. Since there's a mismatch between the active form and its passive meaning, this type of subject/verb relation is called 'the middle voice'.

    If you're still not convinced, look at the difference with e.g. the phrase 'he ate'. Here it's clear that something else is being eaten by him, thus it's an active form. 'He was eaten', would be the passive voice, indicating that the subject ('he') was the one eaten. The middle voice would be if the form 'he ate' in fact meant 'he' was being eaten.

  187. Every death has a cause by tepples · · Score: 1

    'She died' is merely the active voice of the intransitive verb 'to die'. 'To kill' is a different verb entirely, not a different form of the same verb.

    In the same way that 'to go' has no past tense, and 'to wend' is used instead? What about the forms of 'to be' that come from different Proto-Indo-European state of being verbs whose reflexes in English might be 'to be', *'to is', and *'to wes'?

    To claim otherwise is to claim that everything that dies is killed.

    'To die' is defined as to experience death, and 'to kill' is defined as to cause death. Everything that happens has a cause. Therefore, everything that dies is killed by something. When a fellow dies of a heart attack, the heart attack kills him.

    I buy the rest of your argument however; "middle voice" was not the best word to use.

  188. Could they have done this contest differently? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The water could have been limited to a safe amount, and the contest would see how long contestants would last before they go to the bathroom.

  189. Darwin Awards are sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Guys in my office were laughing at the Darwin Awards. I joined in the conversation. I told them about the 18 year old 8 month pregnant girl who thought she could fix her washing machine, and electrocuted herself. Or the guy that died in the LA quake because he had a microwave on shelving, or the cop that drove off the collapsed freeway after the same quake. Oh how I laughed. They didn't.


    Darwin Awards are pretty sick. Death isn't funny. Neither is laughing at other peoples.

  190. I think that she tried to cheat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been pondering this story since I first saw it, and have seen all of the comments about how the radio station should be crucified for not doing their homework. The rate of water consumption was not all that fast, 1 quart an hour, initially. The story doesn't tell us how much she drank. But, if she tried to cheat by taking something like DDAVP, so that she wouldn't make any urine, she could have been in trouble within the first hour or so. Does she have a child with enuresis?

    A physician in Iowa.

  191. NO Darwin Award, says Webmaster Wendy by Web+Goddess · · Score: 1

    You are correct, the bezoar (hairball) story is not worthy of a Darwin Award; that story was written a long time ago, and the rules and my understanding evolved over time.

    This deceased woman? NO Darwin. I did not know it was so easy to kill yourself drinking water, particularly as the participants couldn't pee. How much can one drink in that situation? Yeah, yeah, a lot of you in this thread apparently knew, but most people don't, and people who do know are met with disbelief when they say so.

    The sad family left behind is not generally a factor in the selection of a Darwin Award, as many families still see the humor, despite their loss; it can become a beloved story of dear departed Donna. "Gosh, Mom really loved us!" "Don't drip tears onto Mom at the funeral, she might explode!" or whatever. Humor helps people cope with loss.

    But this one: NO Darwin. She was just ardent and unfortunate. And forget the nurse who called the station. A warning from a random talk-show caller with dubious credentials, is not a warning from trusted-Aunt-Renee-the-nurse.

    Best wishes,
    Wendy Northcutt
    www.DarwinAwards.com

  192. /. has a very limited attention span... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    unless you can say something damning of GWB, self righteous (see damn GWB), or pull off a half assed rhyme in the first 30 minutes, your comments will largely go unread. the new moderation system sux too because the points are lost if unused in a short time. /. really needs aother coupld of stamps for articles...and a lesson as to the difference between insightful and interesting...
    a self righteous tag would serve better than troll or one of the 'I' labels for a good half of the posts.

    Articles that generate sustained interest would benefit from a chart in the margins of the 'older' articles list.

    Had I any mod points you'd get a 'hmmm curiouser'. Another tag that might work...