Sheriff orders probe of radio contest death

Sacramento Bee ^ | 1/18/2007 | Christina Jewett - Bee Staff Writer

[Fishtalk]

I am just so glad you said that.

For here I sit arguing with husband. He says this woman agreed to drink it. So I must admit....

I am a 56 year old woman and considered fairly smart.

I had no idea drinking too much water like that could kill you. I think I could have entered a contest like this, not that I can imagine any scenario where I'd do such a thing but go with me, I would enter a contest like this, given the right incentive, and be blissfully unaware that drinking a lot of water can kill you.

Now they have a tape of this guy yukking it up and saying that "we got waivers" or some such...folks, this is just so callous.

I'm on a jury, follow me here. That woman's kids are in the courtoom, all sad eyed. I hear this tape of that DJ laffing and audaciously saying he's not in trouble...hey, he got waivers!

I'd award that woman's family millions. Seriously.

Tell me....pretend you're on that jury.....

The radio station should have checked this out with medical authorities. They're not firing employees by the dozens for no reason...this is bad shit.

[NittanyLion]

Really? Maybe if ALL the contestants died, sure. Then we can say that such an activity is dangerous. But one person?

Nonsense. Everyone doesn't have to become a victim in order for something to be prosecutable.

[cricket]

Despite the choices made; and the questions brought to mind; it remains, all too sad. I am so sorry for her husband, family; but mostly her children; such a pitiful, unnecessary end here.

Do wonder for the 'hype' of this contest; beyond the station apparently not consulting a physician as to the safety here. ..did ANY Doctor. . .team physician. . .'someone who knows better'. . .call the station and issue a warning out of concern here?

And wonder as well, if not. . .then 'why not'?

[GoldCountryRedneck]

..did ANY Doctor. . .team physician. . .'someone who knows better'. . .call the station and issue a warning

According to reports, there were several calls, including a nurse, to the station , but the DJ's laughed it off... "We have a waiver, it's OK"

[GovernmentShrinker]

She worked at at Radiological office, but not sure if she was an RN.

You would think that when she'd called in sick, presumably explaining why (no pointing try to hide what had just been broadcast all over the area), SOMEBODY there would have sounded the alarm.

[Charlespg]

The station needs to loose its license and the DJ's need to pull jail time

[GovernmentShrinker]

The interesting thing is that she did stop drinking and still died.

That's how it always happens. It takes time for the huge amount of water that's entered the digestive tract to migrate around the body and into the cells which will be destroyed by it. At first the body tries to use its natural mechanisms to deal with the overload, and that delays the effects for a while, but with this amount of water it will often be unable to keep up. The exact amount it will take to kill someone is not easy to determine in advance, because various factors affect the equation, the chief one being the state of hydration and electrolyte levels at the beginning. Popping a few salt tablets at the beginning of the contest could make a huge difference in what the lethal dose would be, but there's still a limit.

Hopefully this incident will get enough publicity that FINALLY everybody who doesn't keep their head firmly buried in sand will wake up to this basic fact. There have already been at least 2 cases of children being killed by forced water drinking "therapy" recommended by quack behavioral therapists (with the Utah one being fairly recent and very widely publicized), a recent fraternity hazing case where a participant died from excessive water drinking, and several cases of marathon runners dying from drinking too much water (and that was without anyone pressuring them to keep drinking when it was making them uncomfortable, just overzealous following of advice "make sure and drink enough water to avoid dehydration").

[art_rocks]

"Authorities decided to pursue the investigation after listening to a tape of the Jan. 12 "Morning Rave" show that was obtained by The Sacramento Bee. On the tape, disc jockeys can be heard joking about the possible dangers of consuming too much water. They even alluded to a Chico State University student who died during a hazing stunt in 2005 after drinking large amounts of water. "

Sounds like the DJs knew the danger.

The issue it the large consumption of water in a short time, NOT if it was voluntary or forced.

I am saying that the DJs knew it was dangerous and did not have medical personnel available to monitor the health of the patients. Their main failure came after the contest was over and not ensuring the contestants were medically screened to determine if they needed to be sent to a hospital.

[cricket]

According to reports, there were several calls, including a nurse, to the station , but the DJ's laughed it off... "We have a waiver, it's OK"

Thanks. . .

Despite warnings; and we do not know how exactly how they were framed; am thinking with 'group think/consent and with authority of a waiver; hindsight is probably the only thing left. . .variation of the warnings that if you find yourself in trouble; the more people around; the greater your chances are; of not being helped.

Am still curious as to the 'intern' comment; and whether this was medical.. .or radio station employee. (or if their was a Doctor around/on-call for this. . .of if she called one)

Would think all involved; including signee for waiver would be in jeopardy.

A whole lot of assuming going on. ..including of course, on behalf of he participants. . .

[Night Hides Not]

My stepson just won a vindallu curry eating contest.

Damn! I entered a pie-eating (chocolate cream) contest in college. Had a bad case of zits for at least a week after that.

Think I can sue for damages, 30 years after the fact? There should be no statute of limitations for the trauma caused by a bad case of zits.

[robertpaulsen]

"Sounds like the DJs knew the danger."

Not to me, considering the sources were a) a caller who claimed to be a nurse and b) a story of a student who was forced to drink (how much?) water.

Now, if you want to say the DJs were ignorant of the danger and should have known better, that is something I can agree with. But knew the danger? C'mon.

[Churchillspirit]

LOL!

Perhaps there should be bumper stickers for cases like yours.

FRegards,

[Publius Valerius]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that for policy reasons, we require manufacturers or purveyors of goods and services to disclose warnings because that imposes the least amount of cost on society. You simply cannot argue with this--indeed, you admit that your policy failed with my example of prescription drugs--but yet, at the same time, you say that we should continue to embrace bad policy.

What you are saying is utterly irrational. Anyway, it's a meaningless debate. This issue has been settled a hundred years ago and it's not going to be reargued anytime soon.

[robertpaulsen]

"you admit that your policy failed with my example of prescription drugs"

I said the policy failed with prescription drugs. You're the one who drew the ridiculous analogy between required prescription drugs and voluntary behavior at an amusement park. Since you think it's analogous, I proposed a similar solution.

"What you are saying is utterly irrational."

Me? What about you? You're the one suggesting the ride operator inform the public that his ride may cause seizures in order to avoid liability.

I'm saying what about heart attacks? Strokes? Dizziness? Vomiting? Nosebleeds? Bruising? Internal organ damage? Where do you stop? Why did you stop with seizures?

That's your solution?

[Publius Valerius]

How is it possibly irrational to require the lowest cost provider of information to provide it?

When you go to the amusement park, there is a long list of warnings when you get onto a roller coaster, for instance. Why? Because park operators need to disclose potential hazards to the general public so potential riders can make an informed decision about the risk.

Second, you don't have to stop at seizures--indeed, you can't just stop at seizures--I just picked a non-obvious example of a danger associated with moving pictures and blinking lights. In order to a person to knowingly and voluntarily assume the risk of participating in the activity, they MUST be aware of the potential dangers. It is utter madness to place the burden on each member of the general public (whose efforts would be MASSIVELY duplicative and wasteful) when the burden can be placed on the business owner at a much, much lower social cost.

While my proposal is both low-cost AND beneficial to the safety of the general public, your proposal is high cost and would contribute to needless injury and death (which also increases costs of society, of course) from those that don't take the time to inform themselves about the risks associated with every single product in the marketplace (of which there would be many).

So which should we choose? The low cost and safe alternative or the high cost and dangerous alternative?

[robertpaulsen]

"there is a long list of warnings when you get onto a roller coaster, for instance."

And I can sue the park out of existence (as some are proposing for this radio station) if I die of something not on that list, like a stroke? And according to you, I can sue even if I have had strokes in the past.

Well, screw the inheritance for the kids -- I'm spending it all. Then when I'm 80 years old and broke, I'm going to Great America and hop on all the "E" rides! Let my kids sue for their "inheritance"!