Eight People Suffer Burns After Attempting Viral 'Boiling Water Challenge' (abc13.com) 151
A burn surgeon at Loyola University Medical has treated eight different people for second and third-degree burns after they attempted to replicate the viral "boiling water challenge," according to one local news station.
These people (like many others as seen across social media) heated water and threw it into the sub-zero air, expecting it to transform into a powder-like state and blow away in the wind. But that apparently didn't work out for everyone; sometimes the water stayed liquid and hit people. The youngest patient seen at Loyola is 3 years old. Sanford said that individual (like some of the other patients) was just standing next to someone else throwing the water.... Sanford said there are likely several others out there with first degree burns that didn't seek medical attention.
CNN Wire Services also reports at least three more "boiling water challenge" burn victims in Minneapolis and Iowa.
CNN Wire Services also reports at least three more "boiling water challenge" burn victims in Minneapolis and Iowa.
Darwin Challenge: (Score:4, Interesting)
Burn your bits and pieces off for an internet meme.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Darwin Challenge: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mum: Ifeveryone else was jumping off a cliff...
Today's kids: Yes, Mum. Yes I would.
Re: (Score:1)
It will be a new Cause-of-Death, Internet induced Terminal Narcissism.
"It was parkour, Master Reginald, just before the Color Festivals and Tide Pods. The point at which I stopped caring about these idiots. But for the suffering and tears they leave behind...good riddance"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Mum: Ifeveryone else was jumping off a cliff...
Today's kids: Yes, Mum. Yes I would.
Obligatory xkcd. [xkcd.com]
Hydrochloric acid challenge next? (Score:5, Interesting)
In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society, which is leading us to a rather bleak future (just watch the semi-fictional film "idiocracy" for a good extrapolation). These stunts are one of the few natural selection sources left - whoever does a hydrochloric acid test for example should be removed from the human genome anyway. The problem is when bystanders get the effect instead of the idiot performing the actually stupidity... :D
It is definitely not news for nerds though, I don't see how it even remotely warrants inclusion on slashdot... Then again, I am not new here...
Re: (Score:1)
"In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society" - This has been true basically since society began, not recent at all.
"which is leading us to a rather bleak future" - You're citing extreme fiction, not a simulation. That's... I mean, it's not hyper-intelligent...
"These stunts are one of the few natural selection sources left" - Wrong, nobody died and the stupidity is not genetic but socially acquired.
"The problem is when bystanders get the effect instead of the i
Re: (Score:3)
I know plenty of very intelligent people who seem to do boiling water challenge grade stupid on a fairly regular basis.
But we live in a society that rewards 'brains on legs' type people. Provided your brain can make someone money, and you can hold your life together just enough to stay alive, society seems to consider you valuable.
The concept of the village idiot is morphing into the village savant.
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society
So by this logic, you're going to stop going to the doctor and taking medicine when you are sick? If you break a leg or get blinded in an accident someone should just dump you in a remote area to go and die? If we're going to live by natural selection that's what would have happened to you thousands of years ago before civilization.
This is as stupid as the nerds going on and on about Eugenics but only if it'd be applied to someone other than themselves.
Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? (Score:5, Funny)
So by this logic, you're going to stop going to the doctor and taking medicine when you are sick? If you break a leg or get blinded in an accident someone should just dump you in a remote area to go and die?
Nonsense, nobody is saying that we should kill or mistreat stupid people. We are just saying that they should be sterilized.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense, nobody is saying that we should kill or mistreat stupid people. We are just saying that they should be sterilized.
I know, right? Some people on the internet get so upset from such simple misunderstandings.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is fucking that without a large cash transaction.
I know, right? How much are you offering?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, three generations of imbeciles are enough [wikipedia.org]!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try patenting that idea, it has 75 years of prior art.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Darn. I thought boiling water sterilizes. Oh well...
It does, but it can take up to 30 minutes.
Re:Hydrochloric acid challenge next? (Score:5, Insightful)
In general we have removed the positive effects of natural selection from our society, which is leading us to a rather bleak future (just watch the semi-fictional film "idiocracy" for a good extrapolation).
No. The reason we have an "idiot problem" is certainly not because society restrains itself from euthanizing them; it's because society makes a special effort to produce them.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell on a sled (Score:4, Interesting)
I was up in the White Mountains, in a hiking lodge, state park, national park, I don't recall.
They have a roll--a memorial--of people who have died hiking in the area, going back to around 1900.
The plaque explains that hiking isn't extremely dangerous, but you are in the wilderness, you are on a mountain, and things can happen, and we should all be mindful of this.
Some of the deaths are mishaps; some are bad weather, some are just people who happened to have a heart attack while they were on the mountain. But about once every 10 years, someone dies sledding down Mt. Washington on a cafeteria tray. (I am not making this up.)
My guess is that when someone dies this way, word gets around, and then no one tries it for a while. But after a decade has passed, there is a new generation who came along too late to get the memo, and one of them does try it, and then there is a new name on the memorial.
-- Gary Lawson, The Far Side
Re: (Score:1)
Go away, AC Troll, or if you have something to say then SAY IT. Dropping by to toss out a random whinge does not endear anyone do your position. Quite the opposite, in fact.
"Call it evolution in action" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you describing yourself? A-mature, as in lacking maturity? Similar to Amoral?
Re:"Call it evolution in action" (Score:5, Insightful)
The child survived.
There was no selection event.
No evolution happened.
My goodness, educational standards have sure fallen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we could. When are you gonna go off yourself?
Re:"Call it evolution in action" (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't the child, it was someone next to it. The idiot who threw the boiling water should be prosecuted for assault -- at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident, it's more like shooting into the air on a crowded street,
Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".
Re: (Score:2)
The idiot who threw the boiling water should be prosecuted for assault -- at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident, it's more like shooting into the air on a crowded street,
That's not assault, though, it's reckless endangerment.
Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".
I don't promote such selection, but it seems fairly valid. Do you ever watch stuff, whether it's a candid video of someone getting injured, or even a fictional movie, and find yourself thinking "looks like it's time to go!" Some people don't have that sense, and they suffer for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
1) Evolution doesn't care whose "fault" it was.
2) The child was likely the offspring either of the person who did it, or of somebody stupid enough to let their child stand near that person
3) The adult already reproduced. Even if they died, the event didn't remove them from the line, since the child already exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing an innocent bystander is no selection, at least unless the trait we're selecting against isn't "don't stand near dangerous morons".
Well, depending on how far back you go they were probably your family or your tribe. There's no doubt in my mind that natural selection is far more than individual reproduction, or certain traits should never have appeared. For example the will of some to fight and die protecting others or the selflessness some have, in a group they make the group stronger. I also think that is why almost any primitive group has created some form of religion, it creates an order and a community, rewards and punishments for
Re: (Score:2)
at this point, this can't be argued to be an accident
Justify this statement. An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome. The expected outcome didn't occur. I'll now leave it to you to tell everyone *why* this can't be argued as an accident. Then I will proceed to argue with you.
Re: (Score:2)
An activity was conducted like it had been done 100s of times before with a clear expected and safe outcome.
"I have expended 100 bullets shooting in the air on various weddings, funerals and parties, yet no one was killed by me this way yet. By others, yeah, but not by me, until now."
Re: (Score:2)
And by shooting into the air the resulting death would be accidental. Punishable through the laws of negligence, but not at all through a targeted law like assault which is what you were proposing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be direct. Think more probabilistically. Maybe the burn will leave a scar. Maybe the scar will make it harder for the child to find a mate and leave an offspring. Evolution still might be in action.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how evolution works.
It goes along using "survival of everything meeting a low minimum standard" for most of the time, and then at very specific times there are "selection events" where everything below some higher standard died.
Having a scar doesn't prevent breeding. Being slightly uglier than before doesn't prevent breeding. Have you ever even been in a trailer park? Have you ever seen a family with 12 kids? If you knew somebody had 12 kids, would you assume they must be really beautiful?
That wh
Next up, laser pointer demodex challenge (Score:3)
Let's see if people can get rid of demodex mites [wikipedia.org] in their eyelashes using a high-powered laser pointer. Just be careful not to point the beam directly into the iris.
Stay tuned for tips on how to be more relaxed while driving! Hint: Don't use that seatbelt / shoulder harness!
sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I turn pessimistic and think that we need a good war (or maybe measles) to clear out the country of morons
Measles might work, but a war doesn't. The bravest volunteer, and the brightest can be hit with a mortar along with the dimmest.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps increase the standards in the science education at schools.
Unfortunately the Textbook League site have shutdown for some years now but when they where active they found tons of blatant errors in school science text books.
For those interested you should check out episode #52 of the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe where they interviewed the Textbook League president, Bill Bennetta, while it was still active: https://www.theskepticsguide.o... [theskepticsguide.org]
Stupid people are stupid (Score:2)
They see a video and instantly believe it. The water has to go through a phase transition and shed a ton of energy doing that (something like 500 cal/g) and depending on the size of the droplet will take at least 2-30 minutes, not seconds.
I just had someone argue that a candle could heat an entire room in case of emergency, you just had to put it on fire bricks and a flower pot, the bricks would heat up (somehow) and give off heat.
Re:Stupid people are stupid (Score:4)
That said you are correct. Droplets from being thrown will take too long to freeze even at -30. The reason you boil the water is the steam, at -30 boilling water makes a very audible fwooossshhh sound and the steam droplets are cold enough to freeze because of the extremely small size. Cold water won't fwooooshhh and makes much less vapor. I have a mini snow making rig that is comprised of a pressure washer and air compressor, unless it's about -20 or less even the tiny droplets from just a fine spray pressure washer nozzle won't freeze (even then it stinks) you need compressed air to atomize it further and expand to provide nucleation.
Re: (Score:3)
Hot water can cool quicker than cold water.
It's seems insane, but it's actually true. It's called the Mpemba effect.
In this particular experiment, it's a combination of VERY cold air temperatures, using boiling (steaming) water that's already trying to evaporate, injecting it quickly into a fast-moving air-stream (the windchill is the extreme part, not the basic air temperature), over as large a volume as possible (so it spreads more).
If you wanted to flash-freeze something as quickly as possible, that's w
Re:Stupid people are stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
A single candle won't. But a candle gives off about 50-100 Watts of thermal energy. It's actually close to the thermal output of a human body at rest (about 80-100 Watts). So if the overriding survival concern was temperature (instead of, say, pollutants in the air), then yes, one or two candles will put out as much heat as having another person in the room. And two or three dozen candles will put out as much heat as a 1500W space heater.
People just think candles are weak because they are spectacularly inefficient as a light source. IIRC only 0.04% of the energy goes into light; the rest is given off as heat. So that Earth Day tradition where businesses turn off their 12% efficient T8 fluorescent ceiling lights and use candles instead actually wastes a phenomenal amount of energy. A single T8 bulb consumes 32 Watts, or about as much as those small tea candles. But puts out a helluva lot more light.
Re: (Score:2)
It actually does work, and it doesn't even need to be that cold. The key is that the water needs to thoroughly atomize.
And a candle isn't likely to heat the whole house, but it might manage to make the bathroom a bit more comfortable.
Headline (Score:5, Funny)
Global Warming Causes Severe Burns
Subhead: Winter Temperatures Too Warm for Viral Boiling Water Challenge
It's dangerous? (Score:2)
Who could have predicted that flinging a container full of boiling water in the air right next to them would be dangerous!? Next you're going to tell me that it's dangerous to drink boiling water [people.com] or pour it on someone [forbes.com].
They should put a warning on it if it's that dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
They should put a warning on it if it's that dangerous.
The main problem is when they put a warning label on each water molecule, It turned out to have almost as fine a print as your average eula and nobody read them.
Re: (Score:2)
YHep (Score:1)
I tried doing this. It took some lateral thinking, but I figured it would be smart to throw the water away from myself and others, and not straight up. I already knew it was unwise to throw it against the wind due to a preceding incident involving having to go to the bathroom while camping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did it work?
Yes, you can still pee when it's -20 or less despite "shrinkage".
Re: (Score:1)
No, or at least, some water hit the ground, which was disappointing. But at least none hit a three year old.
Natural selection (Score:2)
Nature doesn't need that much brain-dead people.
Teh Peoples Beez Dum (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
These people are learning something about physics, and are learning by doing. I'd rather they vote than the vast majority of "This is how you live your life" taught people out there.
what temp? (Score:1)
ok, they are idiots in the first place to throw boiling water next to people. let alone 3 year olds. but what does the trick need to work? i can imagine it must be quite a difference to throw it at -30C vs -1C. how was it in these cases? the linked article does not say much..
Who Cares? (Score:1)
Why use boiling water? (Score:2)
The real stupidity is throwing the water straight up, or throwing it against the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole premise is that hot water freezes faster than cold water. It's anti-intuitive, but there seems to be some real question there.
Re: (Score:2)
No. That's the premise by people who don't understand the mechanism. The experiment relies on condensing of water vapour not freezing the water. When you boil water and then attempt to atomize it (you may notice people are always trying to spread out the water when they throw it) readily turns into vapour. Cold water doesn't do the same and while you get a bit of the effect it's orders of magnitude less spectacular.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to see water turn to powder, why not just use room temperature water?
Physics. The temperature difference is what causes visible vapour. The same trick done with boiling water is orders of magnitude more impressive than room temperature water.
I woner if... (Score:1)
I wonder if these people also are prone to pissing upwind. Darwin has a special place in evolution for people who piss or throw boiling water upwind.
{o.o}
Let's get some perspective (Score:2)
This is not exactly a Darwin Awards moment. They're tossing a bit of water into the air, not juggling chainsaws. Most people can manage it without getting water on themselves or others. It's also a cool demonstration.
A small number of people managed to injure themselves or others doing this. They're probably the same people who managed as children to hurt themselves with a Nerf toy. From the sound of it, only one or two of the injuries actually required care beyond home first aid. I do feel for the 3 year o
Re:Should be Illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you right-wingers so obsessed with her? She's a junior representative with no actual power yet you all can't stop talking about her.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
She's 1, female and 2, ethnic latina, and 3, up and coming Democrat, and 4, they can't get laid in a whorehouse, being nazi INCEL Republicans. 5, pity their wasted lives, they 6, back a traitor who 7, will either hang for treason or rot in 8, prison.
Re: (Score:3)
To instill the proper amount of deep-seated hatred, not only for this generation but the next, one must begin the bullying behaviors early.
Yep, it takes decades to build up blind hatred (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not allowed to talk about those kind of things; they're profitable business. So you're stuck with trying to instill a general sense of dread.
With AOC it's harder because she doesn't really have any dirt. She's a pretty girl, meaning they probably can find anyone she sexually harassed. She's from a basic, middle class family so they won't find corruption. And so far she knows better than to apologize for anything (Liz Warren shoulda told everybody, including the Cherokees, to go fuck themselves on the Indian thing. Apologizing is never good in politics, Trump taught us that).
Speaking of Trump, AOC has the potential to be the left wing Trump: Somebody who nothing sticks to and who can bypass traditional media and go directly to the voters. With the main difference being that when she says Drain the Swamp see seems to mean it. If you're a billionaire who doesn't like paying taxes you'll spend some time trying to bury her before that happens.
Re: Yep, it takes decades to build up blind hatred (Score:2)
Bernie didn't (Score:2)
Re: Bernie didn't (Score:1)
No, Bernie is _older_ (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem I see is that here's what will happen:
1) "Tax the rich" becomes popular.
2) Republicans (and lets face it, a ton of Democrats) realize they need to make a token effort to appease the people
3) They join together (loudly protesting or cheering as needed) and
Re: Bernie didn't (Score:2)
That's painfully obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics has changed and she changed with it. That's why they're scared shitless of her.
And Trump is not a centrists, he's an opportunist. He has no actually political beliefs whatsoever. He's taken virtually every position possible but when it came time to put policy in action everything he did was to benefit him and his. He's a Kleptocrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points.
Though I did enjoy the AC's bit about "lubricious". There's a multi-level insult if I've ever seen one. It might be enough to revive that meme about someone-or-another covered with grits in some manner.
Re: (Score:1)
Her influence is pulling the Democratic Party out of the Overton Window [wikipedia.org],
Oh no! The Democrats will be skewed from center-right to slightly more centerish, whatever will they do!
and toward electoral suicide. She may be leading the Democratic Party off a cliff.
Not really, considering the only people who don't like her proposals are Boomers, and nobody cares what they think anymore. Go share some more red scare Minions memes, grandpa.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with taking her seriously is that she keeps saying stupid shit.
So did Trump. The Democrats thought they could win just by pointing out his mistakes, while ignoring the concerns of his supporters. They were wrong.
AOC said that being morally correct was more important than being factually correct. A poll of people in her district showed a majority agreed with that statement.
Facts no longer matter in American politics, on either the left or right.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. I've been expecting this kind of thing. One thing experience shows is that once a political strategy or tactic is found to be successful, it *will* be used by the opposition.
Rule by Emotion vs. Rule by Logic. I have a gut feeling that somewhere in the middle is the proper mix.
Poor Baby (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, Ocasio-Cortez announced new legislation which would outlaw the possession, sale, or use of any such military style, tactical assault liquid.
C'mon folks. Troll yes, but this is hellafunny nonetheless!