Moved From General Discussion - Scary article

[mud_boi]

Moderators Edit - Even though this subject may be pertinent to some members it does not involve mud, qs, or sinking, specifically and belongs in "Off Topic".


I hate posting this, but it poses some scary questions. I know it's been discussed along time ago (this type of thing I mean)....


http://news.aol.com/health/article/nc-b ... ria/544459

[spunkee311]

I read the article and that definitely breaks my heart. I wish the best for him and the family. I've heard lakes are extremely dangerous. And here in Florida, they are just plain disgusting. I've seen bigger lakes were people ride in their jet ski's or boats and they seem to be ok. But the smaller ones. Just scare the crap out of me. A lot of that bacteria stuff has been reported here a lot too lately.
Hope the best though.

[akmudfan]

Wow that is scary ,, you know I live in Alaska and when im looking for a nice muddy spot to play in I have to watch out because we have several dead lakes around that have very stagnant water and I've always wondered if bacteria like that exists in them ..

[mud_boi]

I really hated to post that link, because it takes the fun out of what we all like to do here. But, it's something to think about.

I have to admit that it's made me think twice about going out again, even thought the chances are slim of something like that happening.

[Nessie]

I'd put the chances of this happening to any one of us at very small indeed. However, small as the risk is, it is not imaginary.

This child was susceptible. Children in general, however, actually have a greater chance of dying by an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, unremarkable drowning when they swim in lakes and this is even in lakes that have lifeguards. In fact it happened in my neighborhood recently.

And yet the beaches do not close.

Reading this is sufficiently horrible to make me wish I could take a medical test to find out if I am one of the few susceptible people. Is there a test available? I don't know. I'd have to ask a doctor.

On the subject of risk in general:

Whether one assumes risk depends a lot on whether the reward is worth it.

Examples might be headfirst sinking or mud bondage. It's easy for me to say that this stuff is not worth the risk when I don't want a thing to do with either item even if all risk is magically eliminated. Tell me to stay out of the mud completely, though, and you will get an argument.

In areas other than sinking, I'm actually pretty risk-adverse. Most risks are not great (or we'd all be dead) and can be reduced with adequate forethought and planning. Much of the forethought consists of not being a complete idiot. In my state, a few people go through thin ice every winter and die. In most cases, it was preventable, and not necessarily only by avoiding all ice.

Then there's the random chance factor -- the lightning-bolt-from-heaven factor, or the chance that you're one of those 150 susceptible folks. The risk isn't imaginary. It is small, though.

I have no idea what anyone can do about random chance. One either accepts the risk (to go outside) or does not (to stay home as a result).

Or...a sensible solution might be...if we're really worried, we could try asking our doctors about it!

Nessie

[Duncan Edwards]

I've heard of this before. Awful as it is the sensational aspects of it cause the media to make a big deal when it does happen. In the past I've read that most of the victims were kids who probably ingested some of the water they were swimming in or they had poor immune systems. It is also most common in lakes or ponds that never get cold, as in Florida. I've spent my share of time in bodies of water that probably harbored lots of nasty things with no ill effects. Just as in every day life there are those of us who will fall victim to cancer, Flu, MS, AIDS, hepatitus, etc. by chance, close contact, walking around, or bad luck. I didn't make it this long by taking foolish chances but I'm not going to get too worked up about the unlikely things. I agree with Nessie that there are far more common horrible things that happen every day for me to be concerned about.

[Fred588]

Fred is not a doctor (well not an MD anyway) nor does he play one on TV. However, I can pretty much answer the question about a test the way my own doctor answered the same question about a test to determine what set off an anaphilactic allergic reaction in me a few years ago. The answer is yes, you can do a "direct challenge." Not such a good idea, in my opinion. The procedure, to directly challenge the hypothesis that my reaction was to aspirin is: 1) Go to the ER. 2) Swallow an aspirin. 3) Wait an hour or so. 4) Seek help if anything happens, or think of a new hypothesis if it doesn't.

I chose not to try it.

Reading this is sufficiently horrible to make me wish I could take a medical test to find out if I am one of the few susceptible people. Is there a test available? I don't know. I'd have to ask a doctor.


Nessie

[Nessie]

The procedure, to directly challenge the hypothesis that my reaction was to aspirin is: 1) Go to the ER. 2) Swallow an aspirin. 3) Wait an hour or so. 4) Seek help if anything happens, or think of a new hypothesis if it doesn't.

I chose not to try it.

The only way I can think of to do this is to knowingly wallow in mud or water that is KNOWN to contain the bacteria and then drive yourself in for a checkup!

What's wrong with this test? It involves directly confronting the bacteria. Which, unless I know for a fact that it doesn't like me anyway...I'd much rather never do!

I don't blame you for turning down the potential allergic reaction.

Nessie

[Mynock]

Damn, that poor kid. They cut half his face off to try to stop it from spreading.
Kind of frightening, but thankfully rare. Things like this are why I try to stick with my clay pits and not venture into any of the more "organic" swampy places around my location.