It is time for some absurd humor again, and I have a column that I delayed from last week that I believe will fill the bill.
I have a wonderful idea to present to President Obama. We all know that he is anxious to close Guantanamo and put that nasty episode behind us. Most Republicans and even some of his own party members in Congress have, so far, bushwhacked his plan.
One of the stumbling blocks is that no foreign countries are willing to take the prisoners. However, our own prison system is unwilling to accept them in the United States. After all, what better place is there to recruit converts and fighters than our own prisons. So it seems there is no place to send the militant suspects so that we can close Gitmo.
Well, I have a solution for that, and it would take care of both problems. It would also have other benefits that current plans don’t address. No prisoner goes to a foreign nation, and there is no interaction between the extremists and the other people in our prison system.
We have an excellent prison in the continental United States that has been in mothballs (inactive) for over a hundred years. But it has been well maintained as a tourist attraction and is probably easily brought back on line to house the 270 plus militants, or extremists.
You should all know of this prison, especially if you are a student of history. The name: Andersonville. In case you aren’t a student of history, it is located in Georgia, and it was last used between the years of 1861-1865 during a conflict that some called The Civil War. Others used different names for it, the most common here in the south being The War Between the States.
Andersonville is actually an excellent candidate for the replacement prison. For one thing, it would be really difficult to outdo the cruelty and torture that took place there. The prisoners there would likely have welcomed water boarding in the 1860s. It might have been the only water they got.
The former prisoners would laugh at any complaints today about poor conditions or prisoner abuse. Andersonville was supposed to accommodate 10,000 prisoners, but toward the end of the war, there were 32,000 there. It should be fine today to house less than 500 combatants.
Oh, the side benefits I mentioned earlier... There would be quite a few new jobs created to restore the prison to its former magnificence, and then to provide guards. You don’t think we would trust the US Military to guard them, do you? There must be a good number of people of the Muslim faith here in the United States willing to guard them. They would certainly respect the Quran (Koran) and the religious rights of the prisoners.
Now, if the politicians are serious about giving those prisoners more humane treatment, where better to do it than at a prison with a huge black mark on its past. The contrast would be stunning.
Let’s get a write-in, call-in, and fax-in campaign started to Congress and our president and encourage them to support the Revive Andersonville Bill.
Our motto should be something catchy, like “The South Will Rise Again!” Yeah, I like that!
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Desecrating Old Glory
I received a message via email from a nephew last night. He was justifiably incensed over an article he had read on the Fox News Website. The article was about a Texas woman who had displayed a 3 by 5 foot American flag in her office that she shares with three other employees at the Kindred Hospital in Mansfield, Texas. I have provided a link to the article, but it will probably not be posted for any length of time, so I will try to recap it without plagiarizing.
The woman, Debbie McLucas, has a husband and two sons who served in the United States Military, and a daughter who is currently deployed in Iraq as a combat medic. I think she has good reason to want to display a flag in her office to commemorate Memorial Day.
However, upon arriving at the hospital, she was met by her supervisor, who advised her that due to multiple complaints the flag had been taken down. She later found that not only had it been taken down, it had then been desecrated by being wrapped around the flagpole and laid on the floor of the office.
There is a flag that flies outside in front of the hospital. The supervisor who ordered the removal of her office flag asked Mrs. McLucas If that one would suffice. She answered, “No, it would not.”
It turns out that the ‘multiple complaints’ were actually lodged by only one person, a fellow employee, and a woman who immigrated from Africa 14 years ago and found the American flag offensive.
Through vigorous protest on the part of Mrs. McLucas, the hospital finally agreed to allow her to display her flag again—probably to avoid some bad publicity. However, if the facts are all true, the hospital spokesperson explained that “...it wasn’t the flag itself, but rather the size that had caused the original complaint.” Well, obviously someone is stretching the truth there.
It would seem that all’s well that ends well, but I have to ask why this was allowed to happen in the first place. Have we really become so politically correct, so multicultural and so disrespectful of our roots that we can so easily throw honor, tradition, symbolism and commitment to the wind?
Is it solely my opinion that anyone who comes to this country and accepts all of the freedoms and benefits that it provides should be not only willing, but anxious to learn our language, adopt our customs, respect those who also share the same rights and freedoms?
I also must ask, and I don’t want to seem racist here— there are many Caucasians who have immigrated from Africa to America, so she might well be one of those—why the only people who insist on using the dual appellation to identify themselves are ‘African-Americans?’ Most of them have never even seen Africa much less had direct ties to that continent less than 150 years old. I’m sorry, but the principal antagonist in the above story is an African-American in the truest sense of the term. She has apparently always placed the ‘African’ part ahead of and superior to the ‘American’ part. The article didn’t refer to her race and I won’t either, so my question is not one of race, but rather one of nationality.
I have just one more question that comes to mind after reading the above-cited article. How many of the millions of illegal immigrants on whom our government wants to bestow amnesty and full citizenship are going to also put their native country ahead of their adoptive one?
If a person is not willing to accept and adopt a full citizenship status, then they don’t deserve to be given that status in the first place.
The woman, Debbie McLucas, has a husband and two sons who served in the United States Military, and a daughter who is currently deployed in Iraq as a combat medic. I think she has good reason to want to display a flag in her office to commemorate Memorial Day.
However, upon arriving at the hospital, she was met by her supervisor, who advised her that due to multiple complaints the flag had been taken down. She later found that not only had it been taken down, it had then been desecrated by being wrapped around the flagpole and laid on the floor of the office.
There is a flag that flies outside in front of the hospital. The supervisor who ordered the removal of her office flag asked Mrs. McLucas If that one would suffice. She answered, “No, it would not.”
It turns out that the ‘multiple complaints’ were actually lodged by only one person, a fellow employee, and a woman who immigrated from Africa 14 years ago and found the American flag offensive.
Through vigorous protest on the part of Mrs. McLucas, the hospital finally agreed to allow her to display her flag again—probably to avoid some bad publicity. However, if the facts are all true, the hospital spokesperson explained that “...it wasn’t the flag itself, but rather the size that had caused the original complaint.” Well, obviously someone is stretching the truth there.
It would seem that all’s well that ends well, but I have to ask why this was allowed to happen in the first place. Have we really become so politically correct, so multicultural and so disrespectful of our roots that we can so easily throw honor, tradition, symbolism and commitment to the wind?
Is it solely my opinion that anyone who comes to this country and accepts all of the freedoms and benefits that it provides should be not only willing, but anxious to learn our language, adopt our customs, respect those who also share the same rights and freedoms?
I also must ask, and I don’t want to seem racist here— there are many Caucasians who have immigrated from Africa to America, so she might well be one of those—why the only people who insist on using the dual appellation to identify themselves are ‘African-Americans?’ Most of them have never even seen Africa much less had direct ties to that continent less than 150 years old. I’m sorry, but the principal antagonist in the above story is an African-American in the truest sense of the term. She has apparently always placed the ‘African’ part ahead of and superior to the ‘American’ part. The article didn’t refer to her race and I won’t either, so my question is not one of race, but rather one of nationality.
I have just one more question that comes to mind after reading the above-cited article. How many of the millions of illegal immigrants on whom our government wants to bestow amnesty and full citizenship are going to also put their native country ahead of their adoptive one?
If a person is not willing to accept and adopt a full citizenship status, then they don’t deserve to be given that status in the first place.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Safe Driving Tips
This is the final column in a set of three regarding life-saving procedures. If you missed the first two, you’re in luck, because they are located right below this one. You should note that all three columns involve driving. That says something that we should all know: we spend a lot of time on the road, and it is a dangerous environment.
The following story was relayed to me via email from a friend. It contained one of those all-too-common advisories that I should “forward it to at least ten friends.” As always, I tend to research those messages even more thoroughly prior to taking any action. Below is what I discovered about the warning.
This is no joke and it could save your life! I wonder how many people know about this ~ A 36-year-old female had an accident several weeks ago and totaled her car. A resident of Kilgore, Texas, she was traveling between Gladewater & Kilgore. It was raining, though not excessively, when her car suddenly began to hydroplane and literally flew through the air. She was not seriously injured but very stunned at the sudden occurrence!
When she explained to the highway patrolman what had happened he told her something that every driver should know - NEVER DRIVE IN THE RAIN WITH YOUR CRUISE CONTROL ON. She thought she was being cautious by setting the cruise control and maintaining a safe consistent speed in the rain.
But the highway patrolman told her that if the cruise control is on when your car begins to hydroplane and your tires lose contact with the pavement, your car will accelerate to a higher rate of speed making you take off like an airplane. She told the patrolman that was exactly what had occurred.
If you send this to 15 people and only one of them doesn't know about this, then it was all worth it. You might have saved a life.
NOTE: Some vehicles (like the Toyota Sienna Limited XLE) will not allow you to set the cruise control when the windshield wipers are on.
I had seen this warning somewhere before, and I was curious about the origins, so I went to Snopes to see what the Mikkelsons had to say. The reference I found was for the same story, but the “recent” accident turns out to have happened in 2002 or 2003.
The facts seem to be genuine, so the alert is one that should be heeded. However, Barbara “spin control” Mikkelson included some additional advice from a driver who had apparently had a similar driving experience.
When road conditions are at all hazardous—rain, sleet, snow or ice—speed should be reduced. Driving at 65-70 miles-per-hour on a slick pavement is highly dangerous. Slow down.
To that advice, I add my own. If you drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission and you are in the above conditions, slow down and shift from overdrive into ‘D’ or the numbered gears.
You won’t be using the highest gear, but the ratio is 1:1, meaning that the transmission is on the same speed as the wheels. You have much better control on wet pavement and on hills, too, because the engine is doing some of the braking for you.
Most people don’t ever use the lower, non-overdrive position on their gearshift. However, if you read your driver’s manual that came with the vehicle—another step that many people skip—you will see that specific gear selection is recommended for conditions where you want to avoid unnecessary gear shifting in the auto transmission. It also avoids overspeed and wheel spinning of the type that is described in the anecdote above.
Driving in mountains is another road condition that calls for use of the lower gears instead of overdrive. You will likely use a bit more gasoline or diesel fuel, but you will have much more control, especially on the downgrades.
There are differences in where the overdrive gear is located and how it is marked on the shift display, so I recommend that you get your owner’s Manual out of the glove box and read it thoroughly. I can almost guarantee that you will learn things you never knew about your vehicle.
And one more tip; not all states require it, but when you have windshield wipers on, you should also put your car headlights on, and I don’t mean just parking lights. It will make your vehicle easier to see by oncoming traffic, especially in downpours or in blowing snow.
I received a response on this column that seemed to warrant an addendum. If you have an ABS system on your vehicle, you might want to consider disabling it during the winter when road conditions deteriorate. The computer-assisted braking cannot react like the human brain can when a skid begins. ABS Braking action in ice and snow might prolong your stopping the skid, putting you in harm's way.
All you have to do to disable the system is pull the fuse, but make sure you replace it after the conditions improve. However, if you don't feel comfortable without the ABS system, then ignore this advice and let it do the braking while you concentrate on steering.
Be safe out there.
The following story was relayed to me via email from a friend. It contained one of those all-too-common advisories that I should “forward it to at least ten friends.” As always, I tend to research those messages even more thoroughly prior to taking any action. Below is what I discovered about the warning.
This is no joke and it could save your life! I wonder how many people know about this ~ A 36-year-old female had an accident several weeks ago and totaled her car. A resident of Kilgore, Texas, she was traveling between Gladewater & Kilgore. It was raining, though not excessively, when her car suddenly began to hydroplane and literally flew through the air. She was not seriously injured but very stunned at the sudden occurrence!
When she explained to the highway patrolman what had happened he told her something that every driver should know - NEVER DRIVE IN THE RAIN WITH YOUR CRUISE CONTROL ON. She thought she was being cautious by setting the cruise control and maintaining a safe consistent speed in the rain.
But the highway patrolman told her that if the cruise control is on when your car begins to hydroplane and your tires lose contact with the pavement, your car will accelerate to a higher rate of speed making you take off like an airplane. She told the patrolman that was exactly what had occurred.
If you send this to 15 people and only one of them doesn't know about this, then it was all worth it. You might have saved a life.
NOTE: Some vehicles (like the Toyota Sienna Limited XLE) will not allow you to set the cruise control when the windshield wipers are on.
I had seen this warning somewhere before, and I was curious about the origins, so I went to Snopes to see what the Mikkelsons had to say. The reference I found was for the same story, but the “recent” accident turns out to have happened in 2002 or 2003.
The facts seem to be genuine, so the alert is one that should be heeded. However, Barbara “spin control” Mikkelson included some additional advice from a driver who had apparently had a similar driving experience.
When road conditions are at all hazardous—rain, sleet, snow or ice—speed should be reduced. Driving at 65-70 miles-per-hour on a slick pavement is highly dangerous. Slow down.
To that advice, I add my own. If you drive a vehicle with an automatic transmission and you are in the above conditions, slow down and shift from overdrive into ‘D’ or the numbered gears.
You won’t be using the highest gear, but the ratio is 1:1, meaning that the transmission is on the same speed as the wheels. You have much better control on wet pavement and on hills, too, because the engine is doing some of the braking for you.
Most people don’t ever use the lower, non-overdrive position on their gearshift. However, if you read your driver’s manual that came with the vehicle—another step that many people skip—you will see that specific gear selection is recommended for conditions where you want to avoid unnecessary gear shifting in the auto transmission. It also avoids overspeed and wheel spinning of the type that is described in the anecdote above.
Driving in mountains is another road condition that calls for use of the lower gears instead of overdrive. You will likely use a bit more gasoline or diesel fuel, but you will have much more control, especially on the downgrades.
There are differences in where the overdrive gear is located and how it is marked on the shift display, so I recommend that you get your owner’s Manual out of the glove box and read it thoroughly. I can almost guarantee that you will learn things you never knew about your vehicle.
And one more tip; not all states require it, but when you have windshield wipers on, you should also put your car headlights on, and I don’t mean just parking lights. It will make your vehicle easier to see by oncoming traffic, especially in downpours or in blowing snow.
I received a response on this column that seemed to warrant an addendum. If you have an ABS system on your vehicle, you might want to consider disabling it during the winter when road conditions deteriorate. The computer-assisted braking cannot react like the human brain can when a skid begins. ABS Braking action in ice and snow might prolong your stopping the skid, putting you in harm's way.
All you have to do to disable the system is pull the fuse, but make sure you replace it after the conditions improve. However, if you don't feel comfortable without the ABS system, then ignore this advice and let it do the braking while you concentrate on steering.
Be safe out there.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Saving Lives
I am going to combine two topics this week from prior columns I wrote last year. The two are related anyway, even though they covered seemingly different aspects of the same event. That event is chest pain, most often resulting in a heart attack.
First, a disclaimer: I am not a doctor, and I have absolutely no medical education or training. I do not pretend to be an expert on cardiac events. If you do not trust what I write below, please consult your family doctor, or better yet, a cardiologist to verify the text and the procedures.
I do consider myself an authority, since I have so far survived at least six cardiac events exactly like those I am about to describe. You don’t get any better experience than that, unless you are a treating physician who specializes in cardiac care.
Apparently my column about cough CPR must have had some effect, since I have only received one subsequent message on the subject. But, just in case you missed that column, I will briefly recap it for you.
There is an “urban legend” circulating via e-mail about what to do if you experience severe chest pain while driving alone. The recommended action is to breath heavily and cough repeatedly while you drive yourself to the nearest emergency room.
While the action above seems logical and lifesaving, the opposite is actually true. As a survivor of several cardiac events such as that described above—though not while driving alone—I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to take a deep breath while in the throes of a heart attack. I can also attest to the fact that coughing only exacerbates the condition, and can easily put you into cardiac fibrillation, the complete arrhythmia of heart muscle referred to as “a bag of worms.” Untreated for a very short time, fibrillation leads to only one conclusion: death.
If you should ever experience sudden chest pain of any kind, there is only one correct way to proceed.
1. First, if you are driving, pull over to the shoulder and put on your hazard warning lights.
2. If you have a cell phone, dial 9-1-1 and get help. If you don’t have one, then try to signal to another driver that you need help.
3. If you carry nitro pills, and most heart patients do, slip one under your tongue. If you don’t have nitro, but you have aspirin, swallow two of those. It won’t help as much as nitro, but it will help some.
4. Once you know that help is on the way, recline your seat, or lie on the ground and remain quiet. Get a blanket or coat to keep warm.
5. If you lose consciousness before help arrives, CPR is more effective if you are in the prone position on your back.
I have one other warning regarding the onset of chest pain, and I know you’ve heard it before. Don’t ignore it or go into denial as to what caused it. Get help as soon as possible. If it is gas or stomach cramps, then lucky you.
Now, suppose you are the one who comes upon someone having a heart attack, or who collapses in front of you. The question here is “What do you do?” If that person is a stranger, you might be reluctant to do anything, but if it is a friend or a relative, you definitely will want to do something to help.
Until recently, the prescribed treatment was to administer CPR, but that required that you be trained and certified in the procedure. It also meant that you were going to have to do something most of us consider gross. That is, you would have to give the kiss of life, breathing into the stricken person’s mouth. What are the chances the victim will be a knockout member of the opposite sex?
In actual experience, the stricken person tends to gasp during chest compressions, so some air is being inhaled even without mouth-to-mouth. Also, the lungs are never completely collapsed, so oxygenation of blood is not really an issue.
Hands-only CPR has now taken the place of the prior compression and mouth-to-mouth combination CPR. The hands-only CPR not only keeps a steady rhythm to the compressions, but it also removes the objectionable part of the procedure that has frequently prevented CPR from being performed. In my opinion, it will likely cause a much higher incidence of recovery from sudden cardiac events.
The new hands-only CPR requires the rescuer to perform continuous chest compressions at a rate of 100 per minute. That compares to a rate of 30-40 compressions per minute with an irregular rhythm in the former CPR technique. The survival rate is likely to go up with the new guidelines.
Hands-only CPR
If someone collapses, stops normal breathing and is unresponsive to shaking, here are the steps you should take:
· First, have someone call 911 and summon help if a phone is handy.
· Put the person on the floor or other flat and firm surface face up.
· Place one hand atop the other in the center of the person’s chest.
· Push hard and fast, 100 compressions a minute.
· If there is another person with you, take turns. It is hard work.
· Continue compressions until paramedics arrive to take over.
(Source – American Heart Association)
If the person on whom you are performing CPR regains consciousness or shows signs of a return of heartbeat and breathing, you may quit your efforts, but do not move them and stay ready to begin again. Do not allow the victim to sit up, but make them as comfortable as possible.
There is a Website where you can learn more about hands-only CPR and even get some online training. Just click on the link here for the American Heart Association. Then be sure to read the links within that page. Other links can be found at the following sites.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/BAJ8VTF35.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/01/health/main3984803.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3984803
First, a disclaimer: I am not a doctor, and I have absolutely no medical education or training. I do not pretend to be an expert on cardiac events. If you do not trust what I write below, please consult your family doctor, or better yet, a cardiologist to verify the text and the procedures.
I do consider myself an authority, since I have so far survived at least six cardiac events exactly like those I am about to describe. You don’t get any better experience than that, unless you are a treating physician who specializes in cardiac care.
Apparently my column about cough CPR must have had some effect, since I have only received one subsequent message on the subject. But, just in case you missed that column, I will briefly recap it for you.
There is an “urban legend” circulating via e-mail about what to do if you experience severe chest pain while driving alone. The recommended action is to breath heavily and cough repeatedly while you drive yourself to the nearest emergency room.
While the action above seems logical and lifesaving, the opposite is actually true. As a survivor of several cardiac events such as that described above—though not while driving alone—I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to take a deep breath while in the throes of a heart attack. I can also attest to the fact that coughing only exacerbates the condition, and can easily put you into cardiac fibrillation, the complete arrhythmia of heart muscle referred to as “a bag of worms.” Untreated for a very short time, fibrillation leads to only one conclusion: death.
If you should ever experience sudden chest pain of any kind, there is only one correct way to proceed.
1. First, if you are driving, pull over to the shoulder and put on your hazard warning lights.
2. If you have a cell phone, dial 9-1-1 and get help. If you don’t have one, then try to signal to another driver that you need help.
3. If you carry nitro pills, and most heart patients do, slip one under your tongue. If you don’t have nitro, but you have aspirin, swallow two of those. It won’t help as much as nitro, but it will help some.
4. Once you know that help is on the way, recline your seat, or lie on the ground and remain quiet. Get a blanket or coat to keep warm.
5. If you lose consciousness before help arrives, CPR is more effective if you are in the prone position on your back.
I have one other warning regarding the onset of chest pain, and I know you’ve heard it before. Don’t ignore it or go into denial as to what caused it. Get help as soon as possible. If it is gas or stomach cramps, then lucky you.
Now, suppose you are the one who comes upon someone having a heart attack, or who collapses in front of you. The question here is “What do you do?” If that person is a stranger, you might be reluctant to do anything, but if it is a friend or a relative, you definitely will want to do something to help.
Until recently, the prescribed treatment was to administer CPR, but that required that you be trained and certified in the procedure. It also meant that you were going to have to do something most of us consider gross. That is, you would have to give the kiss of life, breathing into the stricken person’s mouth. What are the chances the victim will be a knockout member of the opposite sex?
In actual experience, the stricken person tends to gasp during chest compressions, so some air is being inhaled even without mouth-to-mouth. Also, the lungs are never completely collapsed, so oxygenation of blood is not really an issue.
Hands-only CPR has now taken the place of the prior compression and mouth-to-mouth combination CPR. The hands-only CPR not only keeps a steady rhythm to the compressions, but it also removes the objectionable part of the procedure that has frequently prevented CPR from being performed. In my opinion, it will likely cause a much higher incidence of recovery from sudden cardiac events.
The new hands-only CPR requires the rescuer to perform continuous chest compressions at a rate of 100 per minute. That compares to a rate of 30-40 compressions per minute with an irregular rhythm in the former CPR technique. The survival rate is likely to go up with the new guidelines.
Hands-only CPR
If someone collapses, stops normal breathing and is unresponsive to shaking, here are the steps you should take:
· First, have someone call 911 and summon help if a phone is handy.
· Put the person on the floor or other flat and firm surface face up.
· Place one hand atop the other in the center of the person’s chest.
· Push hard and fast, 100 compressions a minute.
· If there is another person with you, take turns. It is hard work.
· Continue compressions until paramedics arrive to take over.
(Source – American Heart Association)
If the person on whom you are performing CPR regains consciousness or shows signs of a return of heartbeat and breathing, you may quit your efforts, but do not move them and stay ready to begin again. Do not allow the victim to sit up, but make them as comfortable as possible.
There is a Website where you can learn more about hands-only CPR and even get some online training. Just click on the link here for the American Heart Association. Then be sure to read the links within that page. Other links can be found at the following sites.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/01/BAJ8VTF35.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/01/health/main3984803.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3984803
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Looking Back
Every once in a while we have to slow down and review where we are and how we got there. I think the same holds true in writing what I proclaim to be words of wisdom. Some of my writings are serious and others are just sublime.
However, I have written a few columns over the past few years that require a second look, and the next three will be of that nature. I consider them critical to saving lives.
The first one is a revisit to a topic I addressed last year, but with the addition of a video attachment to emphasize the importance of the message. The next two will be equally important and (I hope) informative.
THAT SINKING FEELING
I was channel surfing last Sunday, looking for something besides golf or the Olympic games to watch and I came across Mythbusters, a show where the two hosts, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman explore different myths and try to either prove or disprove them.
I watch the show on the Discovery Channel frequently, and they and a few others do some pretty bizarre stunts, many of which they warn you not to attempt at home. (As if that would stop you)
The episode I watched last week involved some pretty serious stuff. In fact, it was so serious, and the statistics so shocking, that I am going to try to recap their efforts and results for you.
The Myth: It is impossible to escape from a sinking vehicle with all the windows rolled up.
First the statistics: The American Automobile Association states that there are approximately 11,000 vehicles per year that are driven into water deep enough to submerge them. Of those drivers and passengers unfortunate enough to experience that calamity, 300 die before they can escape.
Wow! That makes the myth seem pretty accurate, but not completely so. The Mythbusters team purchased a used sedan, removed the engine so that there would be minimal environmental damage, and then replaced the weight of the engine with 700 pounds of barbell weights. That was so that the sinking would be realistic and the front end would go down first.
A high school with an outdoor pool allowed the test to be performed there. There were several safeguards used, too. Two rescue swimmers in full scuba gear were in the pool, and Jamie was sitting in the car’s rear passenger seat wearing a wet suit and rebreather.
Adam was the guinea pig in the driver’s seat, but even he had a full tank of air sitting on the front passenger seat, which he could use as necessary.
First, the car was submerged with all windows up, and Adam was instructed to attempt to escape. He tried to open the door, but was unable to do so until the entire passenger compartment had filled with water. By that time, he was completely out of breath and had to use the oxygen tank to save himself.
Adam also tried to open the windows, but the water pressure prevented even that measure. Hand cranks or electric assist for the windows made no difference. Nothing opened until the pressure inside and outside were equal, and that was (apparently) too late to save himself without the reserve tank.
Several more tests were performed, and three methods were effective. In the second test, Adam tried opening the door as soon as possible after hitting the water. The water had not yet reached more than a few inches up the side of the door, so pressure hadn’t built up. Although he had to really work hard to push the door open, Adam was able to escape and float to the surface.
Next, Adam used several common items that you might have in your pocket to try to break the window glass in order to either go out through it or speed up the flooding process so the door could be opened more quickly. Car keys and cell phone were useless.
However, a small metal hammer (you can buy one at any auto parts store) was totally effective in breaking the glass on the first try. A screwdriver also worked to break the glass. That allowed water in very quickly, and Adam was able to escape before he ran out of air.
Finally, Jamie suggested a third method of escape, using no aids whatsoever. He instructed Adam to keep calm, take several deep breaths while the water was coming up, and hold his breath until the door could be opened. That worked very well, and Adam claimed that he could have stayed in the car for another fifteen seconds if necessary.
The myth was “busted’ in three different ways. I cannot give the Mythbuster Team a perfect score, however. Adam was not wearing a seat belt. Dealing with that should have been the first priority.
Also, there were no passengers in the car, and we all know that young children and infants must be buckled in, too. Imagine trying to reach over the seat to unbuckle an infant in a car seat in that situation, or even telling your youngsters to unbuckle themselves. What parents would save themselves and leave children behind?
I don’t have any solution for the young passengers, and I know you couldn’t have a test run—it would scare the kids to death. But it is something you want to think about given those AAA statistics.
My conclusion is that if you are alone or with other adults in a vehicle that is sinking into deep water and you have one of the two tools mentioned above, your chance of surviving is excellent. If you have young kids, then your chances drop to fair. With an infant buckled into a car seat in the rear seat (as prescribed by law) your chances fall to near zero. I’m sorry, but that is the reality.
As educational, informative and interesting as the show was, I can’t imagine anyone remaining calm and performing all the necessary functions in a panic situation like the one described.
Perhaps you read the original column (8/21/08) and you failed to heed the advice to purchase one of the emergency hammers, or at least keep a heavy screwdriver within reach of the driver in your vehicle. If that is the case, just take a look at this short video to see how fast floodwater can wash out what was once a level road. View it and you will not drive onto a flooded highway again.
However, I have written a few columns over the past few years that require a second look, and the next three will be of that nature. I consider them critical to saving lives.
The first one is a revisit to a topic I addressed last year, but with the addition of a video attachment to emphasize the importance of the message. The next two will be equally important and (I hope) informative.
THAT SINKING FEELING
I was channel surfing last Sunday, looking for something besides golf or the Olympic games to watch and I came across Mythbusters, a show where the two hosts, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman explore different myths and try to either prove or disprove them.
I watch the show on the Discovery Channel frequently, and they and a few others do some pretty bizarre stunts, many of which they warn you not to attempt at home. (As if that would stop you)
The episode I watched last week involved some pretty serious stuff. In fact, it was so serious, and the statistics so shocking, that I am going to try to recap their efforts and results for you.
The Myth: It is impossible to escape from a sinking vehicle with all the windows rolled up.
First the statistics: The American Automobile Association states that there are approximately 11,000 vehicles per year that are driven into water deep enough to submerge them. Of those drivers and passengers unfortunate enough to experience that calamity, 300 die before they can escape.
Wow! That makes the myth seem pretty accurate, but not completely so. The Mythbusters team purchased a used sedan, removed the engine so that there would be minimal environmental damage, and then replaced the weight of the engine with 700 pounds of barbell weights. That was so that the sinking would be realistic and the front end would go down first.
A high school with an outdoor pool allowed the test to be performed there. There were several safeguards used, too. Two rescue swimmers in full scuba gear were in the pool, and Jamie was sitting in the car’s rear passenger seat wearing a wet suit and rebreather.
Adam was the guinea pig in the driver’s seat, but even he had a full tank of air sitting on the front passenger seat, which he could use as necessary.
First, the car was submerged with all windows up, and Adam was instructed to attempt to escape. He tried to open the door, but was unable to do so until the entire passenger compartment had filled with water. By that time, he was completely out of breath and had to use the oxygen tank to save himself.
Adam also tried to open the windows, but the water pressure prevented even that measure. Hand cranks or electric assist for the windows made no difference. Nothing opened until the pressure inside and outside were equal, and that was (apparently) too late to save himself without the reserve tank.
Several more tests were performed, and three methods were effective. In the second test, Adam tried opening the door as soon as possible after hitting the water. The water had not yet reached more than a few inches up the side of the door, so pressure hadn’t built up. Although he had to really work hard to push the door open, Adam was able to escape and float to the surface.
Next, Adam used several common items that you might have in your pocket to try to break the window glass in order to either go out through it or speed up the flooding process so the door could be opened more quickly. Car keys and cell phone were useless.
However, a small metal hammer (you can buy one at any auto parts store) was totally effective in breaking the glass on the first try. A screwdriver also worked to break the glass. That allowed water in very quickly, and Adam was able to escape before he ran out of air.
Finally, Jamie suggested a third method of escape, using no aids whatsoever. He instructed Adam to keep calm, take several deep breaths while the water was coming up, and hold his breath until the door could be opened. That worked very well, and Adam claimed that he could have stayed in the car for another fifteen seconds if necessary.
The myth was “busted’ in three different ways. I cannot give the Mythbuster Team a perfect score, however. Adam was not wearing a seat belt. Dealing with that should have been the first priority.
Also, there were no passengers in the car, and we all know that young children and infants must be buckled in, too. Imagine trying to reach over the seat to unbuckle an infant in a car seat in that situation, or even telling your youngsters to unbuckle themselves. What parents would save themselves and leave children behind?
I don’t have any solution for the young passengers, and I know you couldn’t have a test run—it would scare the kids to death. But it is something you want to think about given those AAA statistics.
My conclusion is that if you are alone or with other adults in a vehicle that is sinking into deep water and you have one of the two tools mentioned above, your chance of surviving is excellent. If you have young kids, then your chances drop to fair. With an infant buckled into a car seat in the rear seat (as prescribed by law) your chances fall to near zero. I’m sorry, but that is the reality.
As educational, informative and interesting as the show was, I can’t imagine anyone remaining calm and performing all the necessary functions in a panic situation like the one described.
Perhaps you read the original column (8/21/08) and you failed to heed the advice to purchase one of the emergency hammers, or at least keep a heavy screwdriver within reach of the driver in your vehicle. If that is the case, just take a look at this short video to see how fast floodwater can wash out what was once a level road. View it and you will not drive onto a flooded highway again.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
My Apologies
Wow! I awoke from a weird dream one morning last week, and I was really confused. I had dreamt that I actually believed some things that I never would have thought to be true about science. In fact, even though I know that there are thousands of scientists who say it isn’t so, I was convinced in my dream—more like a nightmare—that man-made global warming was real.
Funny thing was, I was cold all night long, and I couldn’t get enough covers. In my dream I was petting polar bears and penguins and baby seals. I mean, it was strange.
Well, I spent the day feeling kind of ambivalent about my somnambulant change of mind, but then, it wasn’t anything that I had to apologize to anyone about. After all, dreams are personal, and only a shrink ever gets inside your head to examine them. It wasn’t that bad, I reasoned.
Then I opened my word processor this week to write my weekly web log, my Weekly Wisdom Column. That was when I discovered that not only had I dreamed about global warming, but also I apparently did something else unheard of—I must have sleep-typed. There in front of me was a whole column on the topic, and the author was a firm disciple of the Al Gore global warming myth.
And that author must have been me!!!
Okay, so I owe a double apology. The first is to all the skeptics like myself, who believe that this whole global warming thing is just part of a natural earth-sun cycle that occurs periodically. (A lot of scientists say that we were in a short period of warming, but the earth is currently cooling again.) So, my apologies if I gave you the false impression that I concur with the global warming crowd.
The second apology is to those of you who stay up to watch those late-night talk shows that I put down last week. I apologize to you because I do believe that you are probably among those global warming folks—most people who are avid Leno, Letterman, and O’Brien fans seem to be of the liberal persuasion as well. Therefore, I wouldn’t have reached you with my former apology.
Geez, this has been a confusing column, just like last week’s was, so I had better quit while I still have my sanity. However, in my defense and all kidding aside, if you read between the lines last week, you should have seen that I wrote it with tongue-in-cheek. I got some e-mail that told me some of you really took me seriously.
Nah, I’m still one of those right-wing conspirators that DHS Sec. Napolitano despises and warns against. I’m a “bitter clinger” after all.
Funny thing was, I was cold all night long, and I couldn’t get enough covers. In my dream I was petting polar bears and penguins and baby seals. I mean, it was strange.
Well, I spent the day feeling kind of ambivalent about my somnambulant change of mind, but then, it wasn’t anything that I had to apologize to anyone about. After all, dreams are personal, and only a shrink ever gets inside your head to examine them. It wasn’t that bad, I reasoned.
Then I opened my word processor this week to write my weekly web log, my Weekly Wisdom Column. That was when I discovered that not only had I dreamed about global warming, but also I apparently did something else unheard of—I must have sleep-typed. There in front of me was a whole column on the topic, and the author was a firm disciple of the Al Gore global warming myth.
And that author must have been me!!!
Okay, so I owe a double apology. The first is to all the skeptics like myself, who believe that this whole global warming thing is just part of a natural earth-sun cycle that occurs periodically. (A lot of scientists say that we were in a short period of warming, but the earth is currently cooling again.) So, my apologies if I gave you the false impression that I concur with the global warming crowd.
The second apology is to those of you who stay up to watch those late-night talk shows that I put down last week. I apologize to you because I do believe that you are probably among those global warming folks—most people who are avid Leno, Letterman, and O’Brien fans seem to be of the liberal persuasion as well. Therefore, I wouldn’t have reached you with my former apology.
Geez, this has been a confusing column, just like last week’s was, so I had better quit while I still have my sanity. However, in my defense and all kidding aside, if you read between the lines last week, you should have seen that I wrote it with tongue-in-cheek. I got some e-mail that told me some of you really took me seriously.
Nah, I’m still one of those right-wing conspirators that DHS Sec. Napolitano despises and warns against. I’m a “bitter clinger” after all.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Go Green!
Last Wednesday we celebrated Earth Day. This was the 40th anniversary of the original Earth Day on April 22, 1970. I know, some people would say that the 40th won’t come for another year, so I invite you to count on your fingers—or toes if you prefer—and you will find that the count will equal 40.
I vividly recall the first Earth Day, because that was also the day that our American Airlines freight terminal in Buffalo, New York burned to the ground. The resulting thick black smoke covered most of the surrounding area. It certainly was an argument for containing our carbon footprint.
Okay, I’ve finally come around, and I am now one of the believers. Global warming is real and we must do something to stem the tide and save the earth. The final proof was that ice shelf that broke away from Antarctica, even though scientists say that it actually has been cooler in Antarctica over the past decade.
I’ve also watched those poor polar bears floating away on the broken ice floes, and I really feel badly about that. Who did those cute bears ever hurt? Mankind must go green!
Now that I’ve joined the “save the earth” believers, I feel that I must contribute my own suggestion to lower man’s carbon footprint. We might not be in an irreversible trend, and I want to help. Therefore, here is my best effort to save the planet.
I recall that when I was just a kid, we never had late television shows. After the nightly news, sports and weather, the station always played the National Anthem, complete with a waving flag. Then the test pattern was broadcast for about ten minutes and the station went to bed for the night. Television didn’t come back on until about 6 AM.
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen e-mail messages that reminisce about those “good old days” when we had the Star Spangled Banner, a prayer, and a test pattern to end the night for the TV stations. I don’t remember the prayer part, but the other two seem to have been in favor back then.
I figure that the six or so hours that television stations weren’t broadcasting, and viewers weren’t viewing saved us a lot of electricity. Think of it! One-quarter of each day was TV-free. And that was when we really only had a handful of stations broadcasting in the first place.
Now, increase the number of stations to what we have today on cable and satellite, and the carbon footprint is enormous. If we could go back to eighteen hours of broadcasting per day, it would save huge amounts of energy and green up the atmosphere in the bargain.
Of course, that would also mean that the late shows, The Tonight Show, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel Live, Larry King and such, would have to either cease or at the very least go to a prime time slot. If the late night comedians (and comediennes, not to exclude the women) are so darned good, wouldn’t they deserve to get prime time anyway?
In my opinion, the Late night entertainers should sacrifice themselves to help, and we should be willing to sacrifice our viewing pleasure, too. Isn’t it worth saving the earth for us to do this?
Most of the other fare on late night TV is trash, so we wouldn’t miss it at all. And just to save all that energy would be worth our giving up late night television.
There you have it… my contribution to Mother Earth. Gosh, I feel so much better now.
I vividly recall the first Earth Day, because that was also the day that our American Airlines freight terminal in Buffalo, New York burned to the ground. The resulting thick black smoke covered most of the surrounding area. It certainly was an argument for containing our carbon footprint.
Okay, I’ve finally come around, and I am now one of the believers. Global warming is real and we must do something to stem the tide and save the earth. The final proof was that ice shelf that broke away from Antarctica, even though scientists say that it actually has been cooler in Antarctica over the past decade.
I’ve also watched those poor polar bears floating away on the broken ice floes, and I really feel badly about that. Who did those cute bears ever hurt? Mankind must go green!
Now that I’ve joined the “save the earth” believers, I feel that I must contribute my own suggestion to lower man’s carbon footprint. We might not be in an irreversible trend, and I want to help. Therefore, here is my best effort to save the planet.
I recall that when I was just a kid, we never had late television shows. After the nightly news, sports and weather, the station always played the National Anthem, complete with a waving flag. Then the test pattern was broadcast for about ten minutes and the station went to bed for the night. Television didn’t come back on until about 6 AM.
I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve seen e-mail messages that reminisce about those “good old days” when we had the Star Spangled Banner, a prayer, and a test pattern to end the night for the TV stations. I don’t remember the prayer part, but the other two seem to have been in favor back then.
I figure that the six or so hours that television stations weren’t broadcasting, and viewers weren’t viewing saved us a lot of electricity. Think of it! One-quarter of each day was TV-free. And that was when we really only had a handful of stations broadcasting in the first place.
Now, increase the number of stations to what we have today on cable and satellite, and the carbon footprint is enormous. If we could go back to eighteen hours of broadcasting per day, it would save huge amounts of energy and green up the atmosphere in the bargain.
Of course, that would also mean that the late shows, The Tonight Show, David Letterman, Jimmy Kimmel Live, Larry King and such, would have to either cease or at the very least go to a prime time slot. If the late night comedians (and comediennes, not to exclude the women) are so darned good, wouldn’t they deserve to get prime time anyway?
In my opinion, the Late night entertainers should sacrifice themselves to help, and we should be willing to sacrifice our viewing pleasure, too. Isn’t it worth saving the earth for us to do this?
Most of the other fare on late night TV is trash, so we wouldn’t miss it at all. And just to save all that energy would be worth our giving up late night television.
There you have it… my contribution to Mother Earth. Gosh, I feel so much better now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)