A Wii accident...

Pug said:
Radio station shouldnt be sued, she did it voluntarily, no coersion was involved...
Click to expand...


I don't think coersion has anything to do with it. I'm pretty sure the radio station must have failed in some if not all of it's health and safety responsibilities.
 
She might of drank more, but it was still in 15min intervals. So still less than 2 pints an hour. It still wouldn't kill a normal person. I bet they'll find she was on some sort of drug prescribed or other, that forces the body to retain water. Or she had some underlying condition.

Very very sad and must be such a shock to friends and family. from the article I don't agree with suing the radio station, they dd nothing dangrouse however it's America so the victims family will win.

Unless you have a condition or are on water retain drugs it's around 10liters of water in 2hrs to kill.
 
Last edited:
Totally irresponsible. :mad: The really sad thing is that she did this for her kids. There really should have been a medic nearby... Agree, the station should be sued til all the the foundations are gone.

From what I know, too much water too quickly can lead to hypervolemia which then causes oedema (pulmonary, cerebral etc.) which leads to system failure then death. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Nazca said:
Totally irresponsible. :mad: The really sad thing is that she did this for her kids. There really should have been a medic nearby... Agree, the station should be sued til all the the foundations are gone.

From what I know, too much water too quickly can lead to hypervolemia which then causes oedema (pulmonary, cerebral etc.) which leads to system failure then death. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong on your first paragraph, correct on the 2nd. 2 pints an hour is not enough to kill.
 
Chrisss said:
It said they moved onto larger amounts. So really we have no idea how much she drank.
Click to expand...


I still doubt you would get to the levels required without a underlying condition. Well have to wait and see though.
 
AcidHell2 said:
She might of drank more, but it was still in 15min intervals. So still less than 2 pints an hour.
Click to expand...


"remaining contestants started on larger bottles."

So she would have been drinking more than 2 pints an hour after that...
 
The radio station will be held liable, and it should be.

1) There is no mention of a waiver. Any competition of a more obviously dangerous nature would require the signing of a waiver. If this competition wasn't perceived to be dangerous, then the implication is that the radio station thought it was OK. They were wrong, so it's their fault.

2) If a competition advocated doing illegal things, the book would be thrown at the people putting it on, surely. This competition advocated doing harmful things. The book will again be thrown.
 
divine_madness said:
"remaining contestants started on larger bottles."

So she would have been drinking more than 2 pints an hour after that...
Click to expand...

the accepted level is around 10 litres in 2 hours depending on the person. We need to now exactly what they drank before we automatically accuse the radio station. We also need to know if she was on drugs or an underlying condition like low salt levels.
 
Kronologic said:
liea betts. It annoys me that her family keep banging on that drugs kill, when it was water that killed her. Maybe if she was given correct information on the symptoms of dehydration and overhydration and the effects of extacy on the body, had been honest with her parents when she stated feeling ill (they were in the house) and gone to the hospital. Then she would be with us today and we would not have to listen to her parents stupidity.
Furhter more, more people die each year from the effects of alcohol abuse/addiction, overdose and alcohol related accedents. And costs the NHS/tax payer more each year than all of the drug related incadents combined. Yet this is rarely mentioned and completly missed by the betts family, because they like the odd tipple.

Drugs don't kill people, stupidity does.


Back on topic. This is a tragic and pointless death. There should have been a medical practitioner on sight and they should have restricted contestants consumption. No doubt being that this is americia there will be a law suit.
Click to expand...
Firstly are you trying to be ironic?
Secondly don't go OT and turn this into a drugs debate.
 
AcidHell2 said:
the accepted level is around 10 litres in 2 hours depending on the person. We need to now exactly what they drank before we automatically accuse the radio station. We also need to know if she was on drugs or an underlying condition like low salt levels.
Click to expand...

Even if she had an underlying condition she might not have known about it. Besides, so far it hardly sounds like the station was the paragon of responsibility.
 
vonhelmet said:
Even if she had an underlying condition she might not have known about it. Besides, so far it hardly sounds like the station was the paragon of responsibility.
Click to expand...
Depends what the larger quantities where. but if it was far below the level then it's hardly there fault. If she had a underlying condition then it's just a terrible terrible accident.
 
Dark_Angel said:
It's surprising the amount of people that don't know things... many believe that if you meet someone on the point of pure starvation, treating them to a massive meal at a resturant is fine, they dont know it could (more than likely) kill them.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the person simply choose to eat until their appitite became satisfied, just as we would on a day-to-day basis.
 
I would just like to point out that law suit does NOT equal a win or any money of any kind. I can sue someone for just about anything but that doesnt mean Im gonna win.

As for the death, there isnt enough information in the article to say who is at fault.

I bet the radio station has a lawyer on hand for these competitions and I would put money on there being a waiver of some kind
 
Replicant said:
Wouldn't the person simply choose to eat until their appitite became satisfied, just as we would on a day-to-day basis.
Click to expand...

Let's starve you for a week, and see if you eat sensibly when we're done. Clue: you won't.

Besides, your stomach shrinks loads, so even a regular sized meal could a lot of damage.
 
Replicant said:
Wouldn't the person simply choose to eat until their appitite became satisfied, just as we would on a day-to-day basis.
Click to expand...
It's more complicated than that. They will want to eat loads but their body will have gone so long without any food, it can't cope with so much food in one go. If someone is actually close to starving to death, they will need to go to hospital for a considerable amount of time for the feeding process. And there's still a high chance that it could kill them.

I think the radio station should be liable, assuming the woman had no medical conditions that would affect this. Imagine if there was a contest that involved eating mystery food, and the station neglected to ask contestants if they had nut allergies and some of the food had nuts in. It's a similar situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom