Girl Critical After Riding Disney's 'Tower Of Terror' Ride

[truthpusher]

http://www.local6.com/news/4713504/detail.html

Girl Critical After Riding Disney's 'Tower Of Terror' Ride
-------------------
POSTED: 1:00 pm EDT July 12, 2005
UPDATED: 2:16 pm EDT July 12, 2005
-------------------
A 16-year-old girl is in critical condition after riding the "Twilight Zone Tower Of Terror" ride at Disney-MGM Studios at Walt Disney World, according to Local 6 News.

Officials said a girl from Britain exited the ride Tuesday at about 9:50 a.m. and complained that she was not feeling well, Local 6 News reported.

She sat down with her mother in the theme park but her condition continued to worsen, an Orange County Sheriff's spokesman said.

Disney medics came out and treated her and she was transported to Celebration Hospital where she was unresponsive, Local 6 News learned.

(snip)

On the ride, guests are seated aboard a freight elevator that glides through hotel passageways.

The elevator enters a pitch-black shaft and launches guests skyward unexpectedly. The vehicle then drops 13 stories.

link: http://www.local6.com/news/4713504/detail.html

[AlCzervik]

1. i went on that-the first 2 drops are pretty big

[FlemingsGhost]

2. Just rode it, last month ...

Pretty cool, although another minute or two, I might have puked.

Still, thumbs way up for Disney/MGM Studios.

[MindPilot]

3. I've been on the one at California Adventures

It's not that big a deal, and unless the one at Disney World is way different the drops are nowhere near 13 stories, maybe 30 or 40 feet.

I don't see how it could hurt anyone unless there was a pre-existing condition that the ride exacerbated.

[jayctravis]

117. The Florida version actually has forward movement.

It's a great ride, very pulse pounding, and does cause tension and fear that could be enough to spark a preexisting medical problem. If you're in good health there's no problem with the ride.

In Florida you board one of four elevator shafts, rise partway and see a hallway disappear, then rise further and open on a floor halfway up. The elevator then moves foward, four elevator shafts here join into two, and the vehicle parks in the drop shaft. You drop about 20 feet in pitch blackness, then are rocketed to the top to a door that faces outside where you can see how high you are. After some more randomized dropping and rising with special effects, the elevators shoot from the bottom completely to the top with no braking, falling straight back down when gravity takes over at the apex. The actual building is allegedly 13 stories tall, but the fast ride movement takes place in probably only about 30-40 feet of vertical space that feels like a lot more.

I've read the California version does not have any forward-backward movement during the ride.

[Robeson]

4. From the article...

..."Florida's major theme parks are not directly regulated by the state, and instead have their own inspectors."

I guess it helps to have friends in the governor's mansion and state legislature.

[sidpleasant]

13. Disney World is actually an autonomous government district

Back in '65 the Florida legislature established the Reedy Creek Improvement District whose 38.6 square miles happens to be land that belongs entirely to Disney and its subsidiaries. The state of Florida's web site describes the legislation that set up the RCID thus:

The act clearly outlines the District's authority to provide essential public services such as drainage and flood control, solid waste collection, wastewater treatment, pest control, fire protection, and the regulation of building codes and land use within the district. It also gives the District authority to issue bonds to finance these improvements and services.

Note the last line: the RCID gets to issue tax free municipal bonds to pay for improvements to Disney World's infrastructure. The bonds are repaid by taxes that Disney pays to the RCID. Disney's captive government sets the building codes (and probably the ride safety codes too) for Disney World. One great example of how incestuous all this is is Reedy Creek Energy Services, a Disney subsidiary that provides water and waste treatment. RCID contracts with Reedy Creek Energy for those services; in other words, Disney pays taxes to RCID who give it right back to Disney!

[Robeson]

16. Wow....

...Thanks for the info...:thumbsup:

[fleabert]

38. from my experience...

height and weight restrictions are suggested by the manufacturers, and are sometimes made stricter by the theme park operator.

There are also many safety standards set by ASTM, most theme parks use this organization to set many of their own company standards.

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/index.shtml?E+mystore
http://www.iaapa.org/modules/MediaNews/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&mtid=3&iid=1048


The industry isn't perfect, but I can say (as a liberal and from working in/around the industry for ten+ years) that it does, on the whole, strive to be safe. I cannot speak for carnivals or the like, but the major theme park operators want nothing more than to have an accident free season every year.

There are also safety professionals employed by the parks whose sole purpose is to keep the public and the employees safe, and make changes to the safety program if necessary. I know a lot of these people, and believe me, they care A LOT. Litigation reduction is also part of their job, but it's safety they really care about, at least the ones I know.

as a liberal and as an industry insider, I do not support federal regulation of theme parks or theme park companies, I do support state regulation.


on edit: more links
http://www.iaapa.org/modules/MediaNews/index.cfm?fuseaction=Details&mtid=3&iid=1042

one person that I knew very well was this man:
http://www.iaapaorlando.com/prorlHOF.htm

Richard J. Coulter was the first safety and loss prevention professional employed full time in the amusement industry. He worked at Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio. After leaving Cedar Point, Dick formed a consulting company that became the largest in the world, focusing on issues of safety, loss prevention, facility audits, and ride inspections, as well as education and employee training programs.

[iverglas]

39. ah, Cedar Point

Yes, that would be the park where my father suffered his serious head injury on a roller coaster.

Because my father did not reside in the US and the highly-recommended US lawyer who had initially agreed to take his case on contingency backed out -- there were no precedents for such an action at the time -- and because my father really could not face the idea of lengthy and complex legal proceedings, we did not pursue legal action against the park. In fact, the park may not have known about my father's injury at all. (Given the nature of the locations - tourist attractions - it isn't surprising to find that a relatively high proportion of the injured have been non-US residents, obviously conveniently for the operators.)

I guess I should send Mr. Coulter the New England Journal of Medicine report of my father's injury, in case he hasn't read about it on Mr. Markey's website
http://www.house.gov/markey/amusement.htm
or found it in his own research.

The industry has a rather strange view of "science":

http://www.gettheloop.com/loopjanuary3/loop048.html

Therein lies the danger of this ongoing debate, pointing to what is truly the greater public health risk and why the results of the Six Flags study could have an important impact far beyond our own industry. Harbaugh described how he recently treated a young man with a two-week history of headaches. The man had a subdural hematoma. Upon asking the patient if he had experienced any recent trauma, the man cited riding a roller coaster four months earlier. “He was convinced that this was the cause of his subdural hematoma as he had read about the risks of riding a roller coaster,” Harbaugh said. “If the statement that roller coasters frequently cause neurological injuries is repeated often enough, even if not true, the reported incidence of ‘roller coaster related neurological injuries’ will increase because more patients and physicians will inaccurately assign a causal relationship between riding a roller coaster and a subsequent neurological event.”

That’s not just bad science, that’s bad medicine.

Gosh, it's "bad medicine" to think that a subdural haematoma probably didn't just spontaneously appear and was probably caused by a trauma, and to connect it to the only known trauma to have occurred.

My father (from the NEJM report):

A 64-year-old man presented to our neurology clinic with a 10-week history of headache. ... The headaches developed gradually after he began riding a roller coaster at an amusement park.

His was apparently a rather bad bleed; others may be slower. The injury is time-sensitive in its nature: it often takes time for the blood to accumulate sufficiently to exert the pressure that causes the pain.

Yet the whole nature of this how-safe-are-we argument is all about stating the obvious, for both sides of the issue. At its very core, this is a debate in which people look at 200-foot-high coasters on which riders in nothing more than go-karts are whipped about on relatively thin rails and those people ask the obvious: “How can it be safe?” Builders and operators of those coasters endure tests and checks and redundancies and then watch thousands of passengers take hundreds of cycles and state the obvious: “How can it not be safe?”

Maybe if the builders and operators were neurosurgeons and not engineers and mechanics, it would make sense for them to be the ones answering the question.

[fleabert]

43. if you had more thouroughly read my links, perhaps you would have noted

that Mr. Coulter is now deceased. I cannot share any information with him. I did not say that accidents do not happen, and it is very unfortunate that your father, or anyone for that matter, got hurt at one, but that does not mean that parks do not care about safety. I know the people, the actual real-life people, involved in this industry, and I do not know one that doesn't care about safety.

perhaps a 64 year old man should not have ridden a roller coaster? I don't know, I wasn't involved in this case and won't comment further.

"200-foot-high coasters on which riders in nothing more than go-karts are whipped about on relatively thin rails" - this comment is nothing more than ignorance about ride engineering and building.

I know Markey's work well, I do not agree with his findings.

I did not ever say that parks should not be regulated at all, I simply said that I didn't think the federal government should be doing it. In the US, all this would lead to is more litigation than already exists.

I have much more to say, but do not have time right to do so. I will write more later.

Please note that I do not dispute that the industry has room for improvement, every industry that serves the public should strive for that constantly.

[iverglas]

49. but don't let that stop you

perhaps a 64 year old man should not have ridden a roller coaster? I don't know, I wasn't involved in this case and won't comment further.

Why not just make an insinuation -- that I was fathered by a particularly stupid or careless or self-indulgent man -- and then say you don't want to talk about it?

Do amusement parks prohibit 64-year-old men from riding their roller coasters, or even advise them not to? Surely if 64-year-old men shouldn't do so, they'd do that, eh?

Was there anything in the report of my father's injury and treatment in the NEJM (posted in full in this thread) that suggested that his age had anything to do with his injury? Would the ages of the people in their 20s who have suffered similar injuries have contra-indicated roller coaster riding?

"200-foot-high coasters on which riders in nothing more than go-karts are whipped about on relatively thin rails" - this comment is nothing more than ignorance about ride engineering and building.

Whoa ... too bad it was made by someone in the industry, as I thought was apparent from the link I provided; see:
http://www.gettheloop.com/index.html
... and that you chose to take it out of context as if it had actually been said by someone critical of the industry. Not to mention that the person in the industry who said it in the first place was just setting up a straw fella to knock down, of course.

I know the people, the actual real-life people, involved in this industry, and I do not know one that doesn't care about safety.

Yes, that is surely indicated by all the mechanical testing of the ride in question conducted by Disney before they reopened it today. What a nice show they put on -- which had nothing to do with the actual cause of the victim's injury, if it was in fact what it appears, from the available information, to have been.

In the face of the body of evidence that does exist concerning traumatic brain/head injuries on amusement park rides, I don't know why anyone would object to whatever regulations were needed to protect the public.

[fleabert]

65. please don't turn this into me vs. you.

i never said your father was stupid.

my perspective comes from years of experience in the industry. and years of riding roller coasters myself.

There are ample warnings, imo, about the safety of riding roller coaster, for the public to make an informed decision about riding them. I do not believe that more regulation, heaped on top of existing regulation, will solve any problems that may exist in the industry.

I have tried to be kind, and non-emotional, which is why I will not comment on your father's case, as any comment or opinion I may have that is negative, or contradictive to the findings you believe to be true, is sure to only raise an emotional response from you (as it should, it's your father).

My original response was to stand up for those people I know very well that care very much and put their entire career towards the protection and safety of the public in the theme park industry. They are not evil, they do not purposely or negligently build and operate rides to hurt people. You have no idea the amount of money and time invested by the theme park companies and employees for safety. I do. I defend that. The simple truth is that you are more likely to die on your way to the theme park, than you are to die on a ride or because of a ride; because of the efforts of my friends and family.

Simply put, we disagree, and will probably never agree.

I have been involved on the first aid side of ride injuries, 99% of them were caused by the rider, I think that issue needs more attention than implementing more federal oversight on an industry that is already regulated by the states. If you have a problem with one company, that has exemptions to state oversight, perhaps you should focus your attention on that one state?

[iverglas]

69. oh, don't let that stop you

I have tried to be kind, and non-emotional, which is why I will not comment on your father's case, as any comment or opinion I may have that is negative, or contradictive to the findings you believe to be true, is sure to only raise an emotional response from you (as it should, it's your father).

Well, I guess I just might have an "emotional" response if someone decided to make statements or advance hypotheses in public for which s/he had no ground whatsoever, and which were contrary to the expert, professional opinions of the people who actually did know what they were talking about, and were groundless, if not plain false. I'd think that it was an incivil thing to do, and I tend to get peeved about that, having rather a high regard for candidness and truth.

Just as I think making insinuations in that direction without coming out and saying what one "may have" to say, and claiming to do so out of consideration for someone else's feelings without any basis for the claim as to what those feelings would be, is incivil.

Maybe some people become vindictive and irrational when something bad happens to someone they care about. I don't. And there is simply no basis for anyone to insinuate that I do.

I raise the case of my father in public when it is relevant, because it is something I happen to know about, and because I think that the information is important for other people to have.

What happened to my father is a FACT, completely regardless of what I might feel about it. I happen to know about this fact because the person involved was my father. The apparent problem of amusement park ride safety that caused his injury, and my concern about that problem, exist entirely independently of my feelings about what happened to my father.

If your father had been killed in WWII and you offered that fact as evidence of the evils of fascism, would it be decent or reasonable of me to insinuate that your opposition to fascism was attributable to some childish resentment of the people who killed him?

Don't imagine that I don't expect insinuations that I do this out of vindictiveness and irrational animus against the amusement park industry, or insinuations that my father was the author of his own misfortune in one way or another. I've read the fan/industry websites portraying the victims of these injuries as just that.

My original response was to stand up for those people I know very well that care very much and put their entire career towards the protection and safety of the public in the theme park industry.

Nice, but it wasn't a "response" to anything I said. I'm not in the habit of blaming the employee for the owners'/shareholders' decisions. This is a complex issue, relating to the design of the devices, not the operation of them. The fault - if fault there is - lies well above the operational level. So there was simply no defending needed.

I have been involved on the first aid side of ride injuries, 99% of them were caused by the rider, ...

That's nice. Unfortunately, I have been talking about traumatic brain injury, not broken ankles, and I haven't yet figured out how a subdural haematoma or cerbral artery dissection suffered on an amusement park ride is likely to have been, or even could have been, "caused by the rider".

If you have a problem with one company, that has exemptions to state oversight, perhaps you should focus your attention on that one state?

If I'd given any indication that I have a problem with one company, this would be useful advice.

Infantilizing someone who has expressed concerns about a matter, and trivializing those concerns, rather than addressing the concerns themselves ... well, no response is generally called for. Other than to point the problem out.

[fleabert]

74. dude. calm down.

experts on both sides have their opinions, and I know plenty that disagree with you.

I am done. we disagree.

on edit, I think you would love to talk to Kathy Fackler, if you haven't already. I have spoken with her on email and find her to be a very knowledgeable and rational person. She and I also disagree about federal regulation, but I appreciate her concern and respect her efforts. After she and I conversed about an item she had posted on her site, she thanked me for my insight into the problem and changed the misinformation she had posted. (perhaps this will show you that I am way above petty bickering and can, indeed, agree to disagree)

www.saferparks.org

I really like her balanced approach, she includes safe ridership recommendations and also speaks to the industry...her reaching out to the industry is refreshing as well, rather than just attacking it. (not that I am saying anything about you, please don't get all bold happy and say that I did, I am just saying that some activists (not you) on this issue don't care to even involve themselves with the people who have been operating the rides for years)

[fleabert]

103. apparently, I am not done. are you? no comment on this?

my post I am responding to...

[fleabert]

87. and,. btw, what does "don't let that stop you' mean?

what is 'that'? you said it twice, and I am confused.

[iverglas]

90. your compunctions

about saying things aloud that you evidently have no compunction about insinuating.

[fleabert]

94. i have no guilt about anything I have said.

compunction:

A strong uneasiness caused by a sense of guilt.

and I have insinuated nothing, I have been quite clear, imo.

[noonwitch]

68. Did your dad get injured on the Blue Streak?

That's a really old coaster by Cedar Point standards. It's like the one on "The Simpsons" that they call the tooth chipper. It doesn't have the more modern safety restraints, just the bar that pulls down over your knees, and your butt flies out of the seat a bit when it goes around corners and such.

I always liked the Jumbo Jets, but they tore that down in the late 70s. That was another one without any safety belts or anything-you held onto to the sides of it.

[iverglas]

70. I actually don't know

It was in 1994, I think, and I wasn't there when it happened, or when he was hospitalized. I think it was the biggest bestest one at the time, whatever that would have been.

One useful thing came out of it. Two days after the neurosurgery, while still recovering in hosp, he experienced an abdominal blockage and was rushed back into an OR late at night. Turns out he had Crohn's disease, something he'd never known, although he'd suffered chronic, though not serious, gastrointestinal discomfort for years. An intestinal bypass was done, and he was pretty much fine thereafter.

I guess I should point out that I can't imagine how Crohn's disease might predispose someone to a brain bleed ...

And while I'm at it, I could mention that all of this treatment -- the neurosurgery department at my father's local hospital is one of those world-class things -- came at a cost of zero, since it was covered by the Ontario public health insurance plan. ;)

http://www.lhsc.on.ca/about/medical.htm

The Dr. Drake mentioned there saved my little brother's life some 45 years ago -- more family neurosurgery stories, and another word of advice from me: your mum was right -- do NOT allow your kids to bounce on beds. Their heads don't bounce when they hit the floor.

I can't remember what the treatment was for, but my father was also a patient of Dr. Death (that's deeth) and Dr. Deadman (dedmun) there, at one time or another. ;)

[noonwitch]

72. They thought my sister had Crohn's for a while

It ended up she had a terrible case of ulceritve colitis, which resulted in an ileostomy and j pouch. Almost three years after her surgery, she is feeling better than she has in decades.

Prior to the final surgery, she did go to the Cleveland Clinic, which is the leading specialty hospital for problems like Crohn's and colitis. They are the ones who diagnosed it as colitis. If it had been Crohn's, the disease would have started up somewhere else in her intestinal track after the surgery.

Both are really nasty conditions, with very embarrassing symptoms.

[iverglas]

77. while we're at it ...

Crohn's has a hereditary factor, and may tend to affect women more; I have escaped it.

My father's other contributions have hit me though. The minor psoriasis I can live with. The melanoma he was dying of and the cardiac artery blockage he died of two years ago ... those are more problematic. My brother was diagnosed with a melanoma last fall, at 49, and is waiting for an apptmt to have the genetic testing done. (If it's genetic, I get to wear 80 SPF when I step outside for the rest of my life.) And the cholesterol problem -- my dad was found to have significant quadruple blockage, even though he'd never been symptomatic -- that one seems to be inherited, and I seem to have it.

(But none of these factors would appear to have anything to do with a subdural haematoma 10 years earlier!)

Back to guts: my good friend's two brothers have diverticulosis, and one got far more than he bargained for during a hospitalization 15 or 20 years ago. Hepatitis C -- from the blood supply. And last week, he got a new liver (and not a moment too soon) -- from the organ donor supply created by the holiday weekend, sadly for someone else.

Don't let your kids bounce on the bed ... and sign your organ donor card.

[fleabert]

102. and I love how you really just commented on one of my links, no

comment at all on the ASTM information...which is a nationwide body, comprised of both industry and non-indrusty people setting safety standards. It's a volunteer effort, why don't you see about getting involved in it?

[daleo]

44. Ah, Florida

A jurisdiction that seems endlessly fascinating in its mis-governance.

[Pretty_in_CodePink]

24. I know that seems odd

However, many of us here in Central Florida consider the rides at Disney and the other theme parks to be much safer than the state fair and carnival rides that are inspected by the state. Disney has too much at stake to risk the safety of it's guests.

Typically, when this sort of thing occurs the victim is found to have some sort of pre-existing condition either known or unknown.

I really hope that girl is okay. How sad to be out for some fun and have this sort of tragedy.

[tammywammy]

27. In general, a permanent theme park is safer than a carnival

When I worked at Six Flags, I knew that the rides were inspected not only before the park opened, but every hour during operation as well.

And I also learned that most injuries at a permanent theme park (such as Disney/Six Flags) were the fault of the rider, not the operator. Not discounting that terrible accidents do happen that are the fault of the operator.

I feel for this girl, I hope that things turn out okay for her.

[intheflow]

50. Welcome to DU, Pretty_in_CodePink!

Love your username! :thumbsup:


:hi:

[lady lib]

5. That's a terrible shame for her.

I absolutely LOVE that ride. Just went on it a few months ago at California Adventure.

[The Witch]

6. The way I read that headline

I expected the lede to be:

After riding the Disney "Tower of Terror" ride, a girl, 6, was critical. "It wasn't such a good ride," Lindsay Jones of Bloomington, Ind., said to reporters. "It was pretty scary at some places, but the rest of the time I was just bored."

:rofl:

[kayleybeth]

25. LOL! Same here.

:rofl:

[GregW]

7. ToT and Rock 'n' Rollercoaster are two of the best in Orlando

The (-)ve g's on Tower of Terror are awesome - I still remember seeing my backpack float up off my lap on the drop where they take the picture

[spinbaby]

8. You don't really drop

The ride is on hydraulics and actually pulls you down faster than you'd fall. That's why things float away.

[iverglas]

9. the very real danger of amusement park rides

My dad suffered a subdural haematoma (bleeding in the brain) after riding a roller coaster at a big amusement park in Ohio 11 years ago -- and was written up in the New England Journal of Medicine as only the second reported such case at the time. (The first case, a result of whiplash in a car accident, had not yet been reported when he was treated.)

The injury is similar to a "shaken baby" injury -- it is caused, not by a blow to the head, but by violent shaking:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/332/23/1585 (abstract)

To the Editor: We report a case of subdural hematoma caused by riding on a roller coaster.

A 64-year-old man presented to our neurology clinic with a 10-week history of headache. He was healthy, apart from hypertension controlled by triamterene (Dyazide) and hydrochlorothiazide. He had not previously had headaches. The headaches developed gradually after he began riding a roller coaster at an amusement park. The roller coaster, he reported, "swings people upside down as many as six times." During the ride his head was enclosed within bars that kept him stable in a chair, and there was never direct trauma ...

Now, my dad didn't actually go on the coaster 11 times as the docs said in the article and in this news piece about it -- he went on 11 different rides, and just the once on the particular ride that caused the injury.

http://www.canoe.ca/Health0011/20_jones-sun.html

A 64-year-old man had a passion for trying all the giant roller-coaster rides. But recently, following a few rides, he developed a headache.

Nevertheless, this roller-coasterholic simply couldn't say no and kept lining up for one more ride. In the end, he had taken the same ride 11 times. <In fact, he kept taking my young nephew on different rides; jeez, trust the media ... and especially a Sun newspaper ...> Finally, his headache was so severe that he had to stop.

... Doctors could not detect any abnormality during the neurological examination. But a CAT scan revealed a left-sided subdural hematoma, a blood clot beneath the skull. Brain surgery removed the clot.

Neurologists believe that G force caused a vessel to rupture. No one knows if this could happen from a single roller-coaster ride.

Well, yes we do. That was exactly what happened, and has happened to numerous people since -- and to much younger people with no health problems at all --

http://imigraine.net/other/hematoma.html

-- despite the state of denial exhibited by some fans:

http://members.aol.com/Wildwestcc/WWCC/question.htm

... There are several million rides on coasters a year. How can a very small sample be realistic to make a general statement.

Did you know that head trauma, falling to a sitting position, severe sneezing or coughing and strain from heavy lifting can cause subdural hematomas?

From reading the article, you will learn that the fatality was an elderly person who was on anti-coagulant. Many of us Enthusiasts have ridden several coasters. Even during our ERT's, several of us see how long we can stay on the coaster. From all the events, I have seen people ride from the beginning to the end. Is it possible we know when to stop or the fact that we follow the safety restrictions? From statistics, we are far safer riding amusement park rides than to do the following activities: bicycling, dancing, fishing, bowling, and swimming.

(Really; my 64-yr-old dad was not "elderly", and neither dyazide nor hydrochlorothiazide is an anticoagulant, to my knowledge.)

Since then, there have been multiple reports of injuries like this, e.g.:
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/54/1/264

Not long after my dad's injury -- which was really very serious -- there was a report in Dear Abby or Ann Landers (don't laugh) about a man in California who suffered a subdural haematoma while riding bumper cars at an amusement park.

A member of the US Congress -- Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts -- has been working on the issue of amusement park ride safety for some years; there is a lot of info linked to here:
http://www.house.gov/markey/amusement.htm

[Kraklen]

40. What a ridiculous graphic.

How many people do you know use a roller coaster to commute to work every day?

[iverglas]

41. what a ridiculous comment

Perhaps you didn't notice the basis of the comparison: per 100 million passenger miles.

Yes, the "trips" that those passenger miles are made up of would differ considerably in nature and length. If you have a particular criticism of the graphic based on that fact, do feel free to make it.

Regardless of the value of the graphic or the nature of the data it represents, serious injuries occur on amusement park rides.

Why think about that fact and what might be done about it, when it's so much easier to make a pointless comment about a peripheral issue?

[Kraklen]

42. Um, I just did make a particular criticism of the graphic.

That is, deaths per passenger miles is a ridiculous and misleading statistic on the safety of amusement park rides.

[XemaSab]

46. I agree

It looks from a cursory glance at the graphic that almost as many people get hurt every year on roller coasters as in cars, but you can go on a roller coaster every weekend for a year and not go 150 miles.

A closer look at this graphic says that roller coasters are far, far safer than cars.

[daleo]

48. It may not be that meaningful for a particular individual

But it is an accurate representation of risk to a population. About as dangerous, per mile, as riding in a car, which is an activity that most of us think nothing about. Of course most of us don't stop to think about how dangerous cars actually are, either.

Accelerations to the brain are well known for causing brain trauma, without the head actually having to strike anything. A substantial proportion of U.S. soldiers with injuries from IEDs in Iraq are suffering from this type of injury. Sudden rotational forces are particularly dangerous, such as being quickly whipped around a corner, which is a staple of amusement rides.

Perhaps this is just an unavoidable risk of 'fun' amusement rides, but at the least, it seems fair that a warning to this effect be posted. Of course that would cut into the operators business, so they would fight it tooth and nail.

[fleabert]

76. as one in the biz, no we didn't, and signs say as much...

coaster warning signs are quite explicit about the fact that it there is inherent risk involved in choosing to ride a ride. (at least the ones I have been involved in the creation of are)

[daleo]

88. Well, that's good.

It has been a long time since I actually visited an amusement park.

[fleabert]

100. I highly recommend it, if you are the type who enjoys and is

willing to take the risk and ride! ;-) I do all the time.

my advice, go on a tuesday or wednesday, much shorter lines!

[barb162]

73. I had a problem on an amusement ride once; they can be very

dangerous!

[fleabert]

45. a question,

how many rides would it take to total a few miles on a roller coaster?

[ernstbass]

10. Wow I've ridden that ride

Absolutely loved it and I'm not much of a thrill seeker. I hope the child pulls through.

[jobycom]

11. That's too sad.

A four year old died recently on Space, at Epcot. I hope this girl recovers. ToT is my six year old's favorite ride.

[LostinVA]

12. I love that ride -- rode it five times in a row a few years ago

I won't criticize Disney for this -- I don't think the ride is too intense/dangerous. Plus, it's been around for quite a while now, and doesn't have a "history" like some rides.

[Javaman]

14. In a car wreck, it's not the crash but the sudden stop that kills most...

Car travels 60 miles an hour into telephone pole, car stops, people stop, but internal organs keep going and only stop when then hit the inside wall of your body.
This is the same case for many race car wrecks.

so this girl could have been one of the few, statistically speaking, that could have suffered massive internal damages because of the sudden stop after being violently thrust upward on the ride.

[jayctravis]

118. Not sure that would do it.

I've been on the ride several times, and I wouldn't describe it as jarring. You'd think you'd land hard in the seat at the bottom, but somehow they brake it so there is no banging or discomfort at all. There is the freaky moment when it feels the seat disappears out from under you, but that's negative G's that somewhat mimick weightlessness and also aren't really physically traumatic.

The ride is very tense however. The fear that builds up before the drop (the ride is all about delaying what you know is coming) could certainly cause someone with a weak heart to experience altered blood pressure, and the sudden startle of being dropped could cause an adrenaline rush that might not be good for someone in poor health. Millions of people have done it without problems. With the high number of people that visit the resort there are bound to be some deaths and injuries; not just on rides, but from the summer heat, falls, etc.

[geebensis]

15. I'm not a Disney fan by any means, but...

...those folks are positively anal about safety. Millions of people visit every year, and incidents like this are rare enough to make national, if not international news.

Disney wouldn't stay in business very long if they cut corners on safety.

[XemaSab]

47. Totally

every time a kid dies at disneyland or any other disney theme park, it's national news.

They don't want a reputation as a place where little kids die on rides.

[MrSlayer]

17. I've been on TOT a million times.

And never had any adverse effects. I'm sure this girl had some sort of undiagnosed problem that has nothing to do with the ride. It's a damn shame any way you look at it.

[iverglas]

18. you're *sure*?

I'm sure this girl had some sort of undiagnosed problem that has nothing to do with the ride.

I wish I could be so sure of things I don't know anything about.

I do happen to know some things about amusement park ride safety -- as does a Democratic member of the US Congress who has devoted a lot of energy to the problem. You're welcome to read some of them in my earlier post here.


I just never cease to be amazed.

In one thread, efforts to subject products that people ingest to regulatory control are damned as big corporate pharmaceutical interests trying to run people's lives for profit.

In another, a life-threatening injury sustained during use of premises operated, for profit, by one of the biggest corporate interests in the world is dismissed as certainly no fault of the corporation.

Some of you folks should get together one day, and see whether you can work out One Big Theory of who's to blame for everything ...

[MrSlayer]

19. Would "probably" be a better word?

There just isn't anything dangerous about the ride unless you stand up or do something equally foolish.

[iverglas]

20. Guess you didn't want to read any of that other stuff, hm?

In post 14, it was explained how damage to internal organs can occur in circumstances similar to those on the ride in question.

In my first post, I explained how serious head injuries can occur on amusement park rides (and how my father suffered such an injury).

There just isn't anything dangerous about the ride unless you stand up or do something equally foolish.

I'm quite sure that the same thing is still being said about the ride on which my father incurred his injury ... even though he did not a single foolish thing, except buy a ticket and use it.

There just isn't anything "probably" about this. The facts aren't publicly known, and what they are isn't going to be determined by any kind of probability.


On edit -- I have just viewed the video at the TV station site, and learned that the girl required neurosurgery. That's what my dad needed.

Yes, I suppose she may have had a pre-existing aneurysm just waiting to burst ...

[geebensis]

21. How many

How many thousands ride that ride every day, 365 days a year? I don't know, but I'd guess it's quite a few.

I don't think it's unreasonable conclude that with so many riding the ride with no ill effects, the problem might not be with the ride.

I would bet that if even 1 out of 1,000,000 riders suffered an injury that ride would be shut down while it was either scrapped or re-designed.

I don't want to sound flip, but when was the last time you read about a perfectly healthy 16 year old athlete dropping dead on a basketball court? It happens. No one sees it coming. And no one blames the basketball court.

[iverglas]

22. reasonable conclusions

I don't think it's unreasonable conclude that with so many riding the ride with no ill effects, the problem might not be with the ride.

I'm getting used to seeing "conclusions" like this in these parts, but there ain't nothing on this earth that will persuade me to call them "reasonable".

It is not REASONABLE to "conclude" something from a vague and partial set of facts WHEN THERE ARE REAL FACTS that just don't happen to be known to you.

Would you like to consider the case of my father, who suffered a potentially life-threatening subdural haematoma from riding a roller coaster (that's a brain bleed), and draw some "reasonable conclusion" about why this happened, without bothering to read the conclusions reached by the actual doctors who actually diagnosed and treated him?

Why would ANYONE feel the need to draw ANY conclusion about this girl's case, before having the facts?

It appears the girl is still in surgery -- neurosurgery. Me, I'll just wait to hear what the actual doctors who actually know what's wrong with her and are actually trained to draw "reasonable conclusions" about the causes of injuries have to say about it.

And I just really, really don't understand what drives so many people to do otherwise.

[geebensis]

26. Please, I'm not attacking you

I don't have the first clue about your father, but it seems like you might be seeing this Tower of Tower issue through your own personal prism. Just a thought.

Frankly, it is PERFECTLY reasonable to conclude, given the fact that tens of thousands of people ride that ride with no ill effects, that it is safe.

You claim that "THERE ARE REAL FACTS" I don't know, while you overlook the simple fact that the TOT has been operating safely for a very long time, and case under discussion (not your father's, btw) is an aberration.

Mike

p.s. I never in my life thought I'd be sticking up for Disney.

[iverglas]

28. "it seems"?

I don't have the first clue about your father, but it seems like you might be seeing this Tower of Tower issue through your own personal prism. Just a thought.

And a particularly unexcellent one it was.

The prism I'm seeing this through is double-faceted.

1. I actually have a clue what I'm talking about.

2. When I don't have enough facts to reach a conclusion, I don't leap to the nearest convenient one.

You claim that "THERE ARE REAL FACTS" I don't know, while you overlook the simple fact that the TOT has been operating safely for a very long time, and case under discussion (not your father's, btw) is an aberration.

Oh, my gosh. Where am I? I thought I was back in the hospital where my father was those many years ago. What? It's 2005 now? This isn't about my father? Goodness gracious me. I'm so lucky you were here to straighten me out. I was obviously starting to lose my mind, and having some sort of out of body experience ...

IF you had a clue what you were talking about, you would understand that the kind of injury in question has very little to do with how long a ride has operated, or any other corporate bumph.

The one reported case of this kind of injury that occurred before my father's was the case of a doctor who was struck from behind in his car, and suffered the same "shaken baby" brain bleed. Just imagine how many people have driven in cars and not had subdural haematomas to show for it.

For that matter, just imagine how many babies have been shaken and lived to tell the tale.

The fact that something is an "aberration" does NOT mean that it does not have an identifiable cause, and that the identifiable cause is not something that has existed or happened for millennia without the effect in question having occurred, or that the effect in question is not foreseeable.

p.s. I never in my life thought I'd be sticking up for Disney.

And damned if I know why you or anyone has chosen to at this time.

The girl had to have EMERGENCY NEUROSURGERY. We know perfectly well that her symptoms arose immediately after riding on this attraction, and that she obviously had not stuck her head out and got it clobbered, or apparently done anything else that would make it appropriate to point a finger at her rather than the attraction. She may have had a pre-existing condition of which she was unaware, or of which she and/or her parents were aware but chose to ignore warnings. We don't know.

None of this necessarily means that Disney is "to blame", or at fault, or should be held liable. There are issues of foreseeability, just for starters.

But on that point, the body of knowledge that has been accumulated in the last 15 years concerning the actual injuries of this nature that have occurred -- do please feel free to ask google for "roller coaster" "subdural hematoma" (or rollercoaster or haematoma) -- suggests that Disney was or ought to have been perfectly aware of the risk of such an injury occurring.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/roller.html

Neurologists at the Chiba University School of Medicine in Japan describe the case of a 24 year old woman who rode three different roller coasters (each one twice) at the Fujikyu Highland Park. One of these roller coasters is called the Fujiyama. The Fujiyama roller coaster can reach speeds of 130.0 km/hour (80.8 miles/hr). (According to the World of Coasters, the "Kingda Ka" at the Six Flags Theme Park in New Jersey, is the world's tallest and fastest roller coaster. This rides travels up to 205 kilometers/hour (128 miles/hour) and climbs to a height of 139 meters (456 feet).)

... Doctors believe that this is not the first time that roller coasters have caused subdural hematomas. Reports of three men (ages 24, 64 and 77 yr old) who suffered subdural hematomas after roller coaster rides were published in 1994, 1995 and 1997. Of course millions of people ride roller coasters every year and do not suffer brain bleeding. It may be that some people are more susceptible to this type of injury or, as in the case of the 24-yr-old woman, they ride extremely fast and bumpy roller coasters too many times and this may cause damage.

Perhaps everyone should be aware of the potential problem. As the authors of the Neurology article write:

"Builders and designers, managers of amusement parks, and potential passengers on giant roller coasters need to be aware of this risk."

Do we REALLY think that Disney is unaware of it??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1751730.stm

Thursday, 10 January, 2002, 01:18 GMT
Rollercoaster risk warning

... During the past 10 years, there have been 15 reports in medical literature of life-threatening brain injuries caused by riding rollercoasters.

Several of the authors of these reports have said giant roller coasters produce enough G-forces to cause brain injury.

Potential head injuries include subdural haematoma, a serious injury characterised by blood under a membrane surrounding the brain.

... The researchers of this latest study believe <US> federal legislation passed in 1981, which exempted large, fixed-site amusement parks from reporting injuries or undergoing accident investigations by the CPSC, led to the actual number of injuries per year to be underestimated.

Gee. What a surprise.

[iverglas]

31. oh, by the way

I don't have the first clue about your father ...

I can't imagine why you don't. The first clue was what I posted in my first post in this thread. One that had a fair bit of other useful information in it, and links that led to even more.

I reproduced the on-line abstract of the New England Journal of Medicine report of his injury. Here's the full report; unfortunately, I can't reproduce the CT scan graphics plainly showing what was eventually a 10 mm (0.04 in) deep (and, as I recall, 2 or 3 in long) pool of blood inside his skull.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/332/23/1585

Roller-Coaster Headache

To the Editor: We report a case of subdural hematoma caused by riding on a roller coaster.

A 64-year-old man presented to our neurology clinic with a 10-week history of headache. He was healthy, apart from hypertension controlled by triamterene (Dyazide) and hydrochlorothiazide <*not* anticoagulants>. He had not previously had headaches. The headaches developed gradually after he began riding a roller coaster at an amusement park. The roller coaster, he reported, "swings people upside down as many as six times." During the ride his head was enclosed within bars that kept him stable in a chair, and there was never direct trauma to his head. He rode the roller coaster on 11 different occasions <please note: this is, fairly obviously, an error on the part of the doctors; he rode *11 different rides* at the amusement park> until his headaches became so severe that he was unable to continue. Nevertheless, the headaches continued to worsen. They were worsened by shaking the head but not by coughing or sneezing, nor were they accompanied by nausea or vomiting. The headaches were located mainly over the left side of the head. They did not awaken him at night but tended to develop at about 10 a.m., after he had been up for about two hours. There were no other neurologic symptoms.

Examination disclosed an alert, cheerful man of normal body build whose neurologic examination, including testing of mental status, was normal. A computerized tomographic (CT) scan of the head showed a left-sided subdural hematoma, 8 mm in depth, with a mild midline shift. It was decided to treat the patient conservatively. However, a second CT scan two weeks later showed that the depth of the hematoma had increased to 10 mm (Figure 1). Thus, neurosurgery was performed, with successful evacuation of the hematoma. The patient had an excellent postoperative course.

Figure 1. A CT Scan of the Head with Contrast Enhancement, Showing a Left-Sided Subdural Hematoma (Arrow) that Caused a Mild Shift of Midline Structures and Compression of the Adjacent Cerebral Hemisphere.

A dissecting aneurysm <*not* pre-existing> of the descending segment of the thoracic aorta was diagnosed by two-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography. The horizontal imaging plane is just distal to the aortic arch and shows a separation of the true lumen (TL) and the false lumen (FL) of the dissecting aneurysm. A color-coded flow signal in blue identifies flow away from the aortic valve in the true lumen. An echogenic crescent-shaped thrombus (Thr) almost completely fills the false lumen and leaves only a narrow unobstructed mural rim. Two images, taken at slightly different gray-scale gain settings, are shown side by side; the lower setting in the image on the left allows better visualization of the color-coded flow signal. Blue denotes flow away from and red or yellow flow toward the transducer.

This patient's subdural hematoma and resulting headaches occurred in association with riding a roller coaster. The swooping ride induces marked rotatory and other positional changes in a deformable brain that is moving within a relatively rigid skull, thus causing tensile and shearing stresses. Cortical veins, as they enter the more fixed portions of the dural sinuses, tear, thus causing subdural hematomas. Such an event is a recognized occurrence in the shaken-baby syndrome.<1,2> Ommaya and Yarnell<3> described a 62-year-old man who had a subdural hematoma and headache after a whiplash injury in which, as in our patient, there was no direct trauma to the head.

Patients in whom headaches develop for the first time in association with events that cause violent movement of the head, such as a ride on a roller coaster, even though there is no direct trauma to the skull, may have subdural hematoma. A CT or magnetic resonance imaging scan of the head should be performed on an emergency basis.

Y. Bo-Abbas, M.D.
C.F. Bolton, M.D.
Victoria Hospital
London, ON N6A 4G5, Canada

References

1. Teyssier G, Rayet I, Miguet D, Damon G, Freycon F. Hémorragie cérébro-méningée du nourrisson: enfants secoués? Sévices ou accident? Trois observations. Pediatrie 1988;43:535-538.<Medline>

2. Thyen U, Tegtmeyer FK. Das Schütteltrauma des Säuglings -- eine besondere Form der Kindesmisshandlung. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1991;139:292-296.<Medline>

3. Ommaya AK, Yarnell P. Subdural haematoma after whiplash injury. Lancet 1969;2:237-239.<Medline>

This article has been cited by other articles:

Fukutake, T., Mine, S., Yamakami, I., Yamaura, A., Hattori, T. (2000). Roller coaster headache and subdural hematoma. Neurology 54: 264-264 <Full Text>

(On the issue of traumatic intracranial aneurysms, google those words, or see:
http://www.aans.org/education/journal/neurosurgical/jan00/8-1-4.asp)

Enough clues?

The reality of this problem is known to people who have reason to know about it.

The *least* that the general public should know is that such injuries are possible, and medical assistance should be sought immediately in the event of any unusual symptoms following an activity like this.

[MrSlayer]

23. I did read the other stuff.

You can get rocked pretty hard on a coaster if you don't keep your head back against the rest at all times. I stress this constantly to my kids when we ride the big ones. The TOT is just an up and down ride though, there isn't any real chance for neck/head trauma.

[iverglas]

29. no *real* chance ...

The TOT is just an up and down ride though, there isn't any real chance for neck/head trauma.

Yeah. That's an imaginary brain injury she has.

Sharp drops couldn't possibly cause the same kinds of injuries as sharp side-to-side motion. No, the brain just stays motionless inside the skull when the motion is downward rather than sideways. The brain can tell what direction the skull is going, and brace itself.

We probably need to inform this patient and his/her doctors of this momentous discovery:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tandf/cbjn/2002/00000016/00000003/art00019

Bungee jumping has been exploited commercially for 13 years and proprietors claim a good safety record. However, published case reports document a wide variety of possible injuries. To this list, we add a report of a subdural haematoma sustained during a variant of the sport, the 'reverse' bungee jump.

Of course, I dunno; maybe "reverse" bungee jumping sends you up, not down, and that makes all the difference too.

Remember Newton's Third Law of Physics? "For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction."

Think of your brain as you, and your skull as an elevator.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec96/851972434.Ph.r.html

Q. Would you hit the ceiling in a free falling elevator?

A. Yes

The explanation goes back to the year 1589 and a man named Galileo. In his dispute with common beliefs of the time, he proposed revolutionary ideas about mass, gravity and their relationship with one another. These ideas were refined and put to a classic formula in about 1684 by an English physicist named Sir Issac Newton. Newton laid the foundation of 3 laws of physics that explain the reactions taking place in your question. The physical laws in place concern many factors, such as gravitational force, gravity, acceleration, mass ect. An entire area of study is devoted to these forces called mechanics and in your question specifically relates to kinetics.

Lets look at your situation. In Newtons 3 laws it is correctly stated that a mass will maintain a given state of energy (such as that of motion) unless an energy of opposite direction is applied to it. To list this in some sort of order the following is taking place. ...

... the upshot being: if the elevator falls, you will hit the ceiling.

If you move fast enough in any direction, obviously including down, your brain will hit whichever part of your skull is coming toward it. And if it hits it hard enough, it may damage blood vessels, and voilà, a potentially life-threatening injury.

If we imagine that Disney's engineers did not know Newton's third law of physics ... well, I'd suggest we stay off all of their rides altogether, since they might just as well have been built by 1000 monkeys.

[skygazer]

91. Calm down, for heaven's sake

You don't KNOW any more about this case than anyone else on this board. My sister nearly died of a cerebral aneurism while driving her car - no one really knows what triggered it but it was a pre-existing condition that chose that moment to leak. Whether or not the ride caused the head injury to this girl or whether it simply served as a catalyst to a pre-existing injury is something neither I nor you nor any of us know.

You're practically frothing at the mouth, for pity's sake.

[iverglas]

101. golly gee!

"Whether or not the ride caused the head injury to this girl or whether it simply served as a catalyst to a pre-existing injury is something neither I nor you nor any of us know."

And it's just the damnedest thing!

THAT'S WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Oh dear. Am I frothing?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1622100&mesg_id=1622877
Post 22:

Why would ANYONE feel the need to draw ANY conclusion about this girl's case, before having the facts?

It appears the girl is still in surgery -- neurosurgery. Me, I'll just wait to hear what the actual doctors who actually know what's wrong with her and are actually trained to draw "reasonable conclusions" about the causes of injuries have to say about it.

And I just really, really don't understand what drives so many people to do otherwise.

"You don't KNOW any more about this case than anyone else on this board."

Well, actually, I did -- because I took the trouble to watch the news videotape, and to learn that she was being treated by a neurosurgeon, which no one here was aware of when engaging in all the mad speculation and apologetics being splattered about. That meant that I knew the general type of injury she had suffered, which no one engaging in the speculation and apologetics here knew. And I knew that there is a history of such injuries occurring in association with amusement park rides, which no one here ... you get the idea.

And what was really funny, to me, was how few people seemed to want to know any of that, evidently preferring their private theories about something - and someone - they knew nothing about.

Of course, that didn't actually surprise me. I still don't even begin to understand it, though.

[skygazer]

106. "Oh dear. Am I frothing?"

Yeah, you are. And I have no idea what you're so incredibly frantic about. I don't think anyone prefers their own theories to the facts - what they do prefer is engaging in dialogue, not having someone who continually and sarcastically highlights their own words and then snippily gets on a high horse complete with underlines and caps about how they know more about this than anybody and anyone who doesn't listen to them must be some kind of a moran.

Yeah, damn right you're frothing.

[iverglas]

109. then ya better stand aside

Wouldn't want you to get sprayed, would we now?

If someone wants to "engage in dialogue", s/he might really best try saying something worth hearing. I mean, that's what I'd say if anybody asked me.

... someone who continually and sarcastically highlights their own words and then snippily gets on a high horse complete with underlines and caps about how they know more about this than anybody and anyone who doesn't listen to them must be some kind of a moran.

Ah, but those words being highlighted, right above, there, are YOUR words, not mine. You should really keep them in your own mouth. I don't want or need them in mine. Ick. I'm much happier speaking for myself.

Nobody need listen to me at all, doncha know?

All I yearn for is for somebody to say something that springs from some well of something other than self-interest, self-absorption, agenda, or finger-pointing victim-blaming.

And I do just find it hugely entertaining when allegations of such are made against moi, for no reason at all. I'm whining because my daddy got hurt, I hate amusement parks, I have a vendetta against a particular amusement park, I'm maligning the hardworking, caring folk who have only my best interests at heart.

Except I'm not doing and haven't done any such things. But I guess when somebody has been queried for spouting nonsense and isn't used to that happening, s/he's gotta have some face-saving comeback. The best defence is to be offensive, is how I figure it.

But now it's not entertaining anymore. I'm going to go see whether I have any news from the woman whom a bunch of people who had never heard of her before, and who knew precisely nothing about her, were busy calling rotten names in this forum a few days ago based on an unsubstantiated news report about considerably less than credible allegations made against her. Even though, in that case too, I had pleaded with the vilifiers to hold off on the opinion-spattering until they had some basis for an opinion, given as how the subject of their opinions was a real live person and all, and I did follow up with facts and argument that demonstrated the unsoundness of their accusations and characterizations, nary an apology was heard. But hey, I did get trashed for my efforts. And I didn't give a shit then either, you see.

[skygazer]

111. Oh, ho hum

No shit, those are my own words - that's exactly what I wrote. That people weren't looking for someone to highlight "their own words" (meaning the people who weren't looking) and then continue with a lot of sarcasm and villification.

It seems this is the only way you are able to communicate. It would be fun to read if it wasn't so pathetic. Bye.

[fleabert]

120. I don't have any idea what you are talking about.

but i know I never once accused you of anything, I was gracious, and simply put my opinion out there, as someone who has worked in the industry for years. I have tried to put out my hand in peace, to try and agree to disagree, even offering you a link to someone you might be able to hook up with that agrees with you (and she's a respected activist, well known in the industry), and you had no response to that. You are very off putting in your tone. I really don't understand why you are filled with such venom towards me, as it seems most of your response here was directed at me, I could be wrong, but if you really want me to highlight which parts I think you were referencing me, I will. I think anyone that can understand English could figure it out.

I am not the only one responding to you this way, do you think it might be time to take a step back and really look within and see that there might be something to what we are saying?

I am truly sorry your dad was hurt and it didn't go well, but we will never agree.

How plainly can I say it? I am neck deep in this industry, I have read it all. Both sides. I have read expert witness testimony for experts in the field, for both plaintiffs and defendents, in many types of cases regarding theme park safety- I know both sides. I do not agree with you.

I was deeply involved in Markey's legislation when it was first being developed, I know all the information it is based on, backwards and forwards. I still disagree with you.

[iverglas]

122. oh well

I am truly sorry your dad was hurt and it didn't go well, but we will never agree.

I don't even know what we're supposed to be disagreeing about, you see.

Certainly we won't agree about what you quite plainly contend are my motivations here. I did not ask that *anyone* be "sorry" about my dad. My father, and my feelings about what happened to him, are simply not in issue here. You are the only one who has attempted to make this an issue.

My father was seriously injured by an amusement park ride. That is a fact. That was the fact that I submitted, along with some other facts, for the information of people in this forum. It appears, although I really can't say, that you dispute that fact. You at least do not seem to want to acknowledge it. You seem to want to divert attention from the fact in issue to my feelings about it. I don't.

"I am truly sorry your dad was hurt and it didn't go well" sounds an awful lot like one of those corporate mea culpas -- the ones where they're not *really* saying "it was our fault", they're just saying "look at us, look how sorry we are that things didn't go well, aren't we swell?"

I just don't care how sorry anybody is, y'see? Not an issue.

... even offering you a link to someone you might be able to hook up with that agrees with you (and she's a respected activist, well known in the industry), and you had no response to that

That would be because I am *not* an activist on this issue, and I have no intention of becoming one. I did not post in this thread as an "activist" or would-be "activist". I posted in this thread to present FACTS for the consideration of some people who were evidently sorely in need of a few, and to urge them to become informed about this issue before leaping to conclusions about an individual about whom they know nothing.

I am neck deep in this industry, I have read it all.

And I'm sorry -- you're saying that this makes you the voice of authority? I'd tend to say that it makes you very biased source; you know, the kind where it's difficult to tell whether the source is presenting information to enlighten or to serve its own interests.

If you're that deep in it all, then obviously you were familiar with my father's case before I brought it up. His was the first reported case of non-blunt-force head trauma on a roller coaster. I would expect that you had read the report in the NEJM, and read the articles in which that report has been cited, and perhaps even know experts who have sought out more detailed information about his case -- like where the injury occurred, which is not reported in the NEJM but was known to his physicians. (I believe that I also informed Mr. Markey of that detail when I wrote to him to provide information some years ago.)

I do not agree with you.

I don't know what you're saying you don't agree with me *about*.

You don't agree that my father was injured by a roller coaster? Imagine how much I care! Would I care that you didn't agree that the sky is blue??

FACTS are not something that is affected by anyone's agreement or disagreement.

If you're saying that you don't agree with me about something you imagine I said should be done about the problem of head injuries resulting from amusement park ride design, then you're disagreeing with the air. I haven't said that I think anything in particular should be done. I have said that people should be aware of the facts in this regard.

This is not an uncommon problem around here. It seems that people are just so used to seeing opinions that they can't spot a fact when they see it.

I do have opinions -- such as the opinion that people should not leap to exonerate big profit-making corporations of responsibility for an injury that happened on their premises when said people don't have a clue about the facts of the situation. Maybe you disagree with that opinion; I dunno.

I have read expert witness testimony for experts in the field, for both plaintiffs and defendents, in many types of cases regarding theme park safety- I know both sides.

Good. But I haven't been talking about "many types of cases". I have been talking about head injuries from non-blunt-force trauma, and specifically about the one case of which I happen to know the *facts*. And there are no "both sides" to that case.

If you or someone esle thought there were, you or s/he should have presented the other "side". Instead, I was given crap like:

perhaps a 64 year old man should not have ridden a roller coaster? I don't know, I wasn't involved in this case and won't comment further.

Innuendo is not another "side" to a story. You have insinuated that there is another side -- one that would involve the injury in question being the fault of the victim and not of the owner of the device that injured him -- but you have not come out and said that such a side exists, or what it allegedly is.

I was deeply involved in Markey's legislation when it was first being developed, I know all the information it is based on, backwards and forwards.

I wasn't, and I don't, and I have no duty to be.

Markey's legislation relates to a very large number of things that have nothing to do with anything I have said. What I have said relates to head injuries cause by amusement park rides, not to the oversight of amusement parks or how it should be conducted, or the reporting of amusement park injuries or how it should be governed, or anything else of that nature. What I have said relates to the fact that head injuries have been caused by non-blunt-force trauma resulting from the design of amusement park rides.

And again, if you disagree with that, you haven't presented any basis for your disagreement. A statement that you disagree is nothing more than a statement of opinion, and the first step on a downward spiral that goes nowhere but "well I disagree with you", "well you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" ... and I don't waste my time on such things.

If there's something I've said that you disagree with, you might have identified what it was and presented your reasons for disagreeing -- an appeal to your authority as an expert in the field not being a reason for anyone else to agree with you.

You are very off putting in your tone.

Gee, imagine how warm and fuzzy I feel toward someone who responds to my report of facts that happened to involve my father by insinuating, without a shred of evidence, that my father was the author of his own misfortune? I am offended on behalf of myself and my father, indeed; but I am more offended on behalf of civil discourse itself, something I hold quite as dear as my father's memory.

[fleabert]

125. fact.

I am not having this discussion with you anymore, because you cherry pick the conversation and do not respond with the same tone or consideration that is given to you.

fact. you responded to a post that wasn't even directed to you...I was responding to this comment : "Disney's captive government sets the building codes (and probably the ride safety codes too) for Disney World. " and you launched into me about Cedar Point... because I mentioned that I knew Mr. Coulter very well.

you wanted a fight about subdural hemotomas, and I am talking about theme park safety in general. I won't fight with you about it because the research that has been done is inconclusive. I may be neck deep (btw, I don't need you to tell me that, I said it quite plainly from the beginning), but I can read both sides of an issue and make up my own mind. ALL of the evidence, not just one case, shows that there are many causal factors for subdural hematomas, particularly if one has an undiagnosed predisposition. I could get one from sneezing. The g-forces are similar to those produced on a roller coaster, my uncle sneezes in sets of five... he might get a brain bleed from cumulative g-forces that puts on his brain.

give it a rest with me. WE DON'T AGREE. ON ANYTHING.

[iverglas]

126. charm

ALL of the evidence, not just one case, shows that there are many causal factors for subdural hematomas, particularly if one has an undiagnosed predisposition.

I keep on wondering what undiagnosed predispositions those shaken babies who died had, to explain why they died and others didn't.

And I keep on wondering what relevance this has to any cases in which it was determined that there was no undiagnosed predisposition.

And of course I also wonder why it's a good thing to invite the public at large onto devices that present such grave risks for people with undiagnosed predispositions to the kind of injury that they are known to cause, without any warning to the target public, who can hardly be expected to know anything about those risks.

Nope, nobody's suggesting federal regulation of yawning; clever of you to imagine it, though. And really, nobody's demanding that we all be insured against all of life's vicissitudes. But some people do think that making enormous profits by selling goods and services to people that are known to involve risks for a certain if unidentifiable percentage of the population, without at least warning the target public of those risks, isn't really nice.

How 'bout if the big signs at the ride entrances, all the stuff about how you shouldn't ride if you're pregnant or hypertensive, also said something like:

Warning: this ride could cause serious internal injury to individuals with certain existing conditions of the cardiovascular system of which they may be unaware. No one who has not had a recent full body scan and confirmation by a physician that they have no abnormalities of the cardiovascular system should go on this ride. We would also advise that it is possible to have such conditions even though not detected by such means, and that such conditions could result in life-threatening internal injuries if you go on this ride.

Hmm ... something we could agree on?

Btw, I launched into you about Cedar Point because your hmm, maybe your dad had something wrong with him?-ish musings had suggested that you had never heard of my dad's case, and I still think that someone who is as well-versed in these matters as you claim to be should have been conversant with the medical details of it, and quite possibly with the geographic details.


I am not having this discussion with you anymore ...

Ah, if only we'd ever been having a discussion.

[fleabert]

127. oh, if only we were in the lounge and I could say exactly what I wanted to

see ya.

[MrSlayer]

110. Turns out it's a heart problem.

Not a brain problem. So much for your theory. Any thrill ride can be dangerous to people with heart problems, particularly undiagnosed ones. There is nothing wrong with that ride.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071300935.html

[iverglas]

112. Turned out you're wrong ... quite some time ago

Cripes. Why does one bother?

In post 71, over 4 hours before you posted your little bit of "news", I posted the reality:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-bk-disneystatement071305,1,4886714.story?track=mostemailedlink

An Orlando paper, perhaps just a tad more likely to be up to speed?

The sheriff's report says a CAT scan showed the girl had blood on her brain and required emergency surgery.

I mean, for all I know the accelerated heartbeat commonly caused by such rides (one study I read clocked hearbeat in healthy young people at 171/minute, not healthy) could have caused heart problems *as well as* a brain bleed caused by some other aspect of it. Yes indeed, she "almost died of cardiac arrest" (as was known pretty much from the very outset, duh); but "cardiac arrest" is not, in itself, a reason for a neurosurgeon to be needed -- she was rushed into emergency NEUROSURGERY when she arrived at hospital -- and is not necessarily an effect of the ride experience rather than a side-effect from another effect.

So ... YES a brain problem, and that says quite a bit for my theory, thankee very much.

Not that I'd care if my theory were wrong. It was a THEORY, not an OPINION, and what it was based on was the FACTS I advanced, not an agenda or loyalty or personal interest, or an appeal to my own authority or preferences or experience. So if my theory had been wrong, it wouldn't really have mattered to me. I simply offered it, and the facts on which it was based, as a reason not to leap to some other loony or offensive "conclusion" about something someone knew absolutely nothing about.

*My* ego wasn't involved at all, so I just have no need to say nyah, nyah. My theory appears to have been borne out. Big deal.

[tammywammy]

113. Yes, the neurosurgeon was only mentioned one article

from the BBC, but all the other articles are only talking about the heart condition. Maybe the neurosurgeon consultation was just an extra precaution, though the cardiac arrest was the reason she went into emergency surgery (not a brain injury).

edited to add recent BBC story, that doesn't mention the neurosurgeon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/4680327.stm

[iverglas]

114. good bloody grief.

I give up.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-bk-disneystatement071305,1,4886714.story?track=mostemailedlink

The sheriff's report says a CAT scan showed the girl had blood on her brain and required emergency surgery.

I mean, I posted that 4 hours before MrSlayer was so clever, and a quarter hour before you congratulated him (right under his post, see it?) ... but not to worry. We'll all just pretend the Orlando Sentinel doesn't exist and never saw a copy of the sheriff's report ...

[Whoa_Nelly]

51. After riding SPEED in Las Vegas, had a tremendous headache

It was immediate. My friend wanted to ride SPEED again, but the way my head hurt was way too much like the three concussions I had suffered the previous year, (Concussions from a head-banger Down's Syndrome child in my classroom.). I refused to ride again, and was a little bit nauseated afterward as well. The headache lasted for the rest of the afternoon. That was in 2003.

This last March, went with family to D-Land Anaheim, and rode ToT. I totally enjoyed it, and had no real aftereffect.



http://www.nascarcafelasvegas.com/htdocs/entr.html
Aptly named "SPEED - The Ride," the NASCAR Cafe's new roller coaster reaches 70 mph. The first roller coaster of its kind in the Western United States, SPEED uses LIMS (Linear Induction Motors) to quickly reach high speeds through magnetic force. SPEED begins inside the NASCAR Cafe, where a high-speed launch propels passengers along the Las Vegas Strip. SPEED carries passengers through an underground tunnel 25 feet below the surface, a breathtaking loop, an exhilarating straightaway, high speed turns, through the Sahara Marquee, and up a dizzying 90¡ incline that ends 224 feet above ground before returning the passengers on a backward route through the same path. The renowned attractions company, Premier Rides, designed SPEED.

[Lorien]

107. I've ridden it quite a bit too

it causes far less stress on the body than the majority of "thrill" rides that I've been on.There's a brief sensation of weightlessness followed by a fairly gentle breaking action. One generally feels a little giddy after riding it, but not dizzy or queasy.

[genieroze]

30. The vehicle then drops 13 stories?

:puke:

[Lorien]

108. Some of those are spent slowing down into a break

it's actually pretty mild for a thrill ride. I find it enjoyable and I'm a real wimp about such things.

[genieroze]

115. When I go to Great Adventure rides like the Scream Machine don't

bother me a bit. I love roller coasters but a ride like Free Fall that just drops you, flips me out. I can't stand the feeling of leaving my stomach behind up top while the rest of me plummets downward. I don't like elevators either. Like I said :puke:

[iverglas]

32. "Thrill ride craze on collision course"

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=731062005

"The rollercoaster arms race is alive and well," said Ed Markey, a <DEMOCRATIC> Massachusetts congressman who is sponsoring a bill that would compel theme parks to submit to federal safety regulations for the first time since 1981.

"All of the nation's 15 fastest coasters have been built in the last 10 years. The top speed in 1990 hit 70mph - today it is 128mph. Beginning in 1996, a sharp upward trend can be seen in hospital emergency room visits by passengers on unregulated 'fixed' rides."

... Currently, each state sets its own rules for theme park safety, though 11 have no state regulation at all, and 13 do not require accidents to be reported, according to Saferparks, a California-based pressure group run by a woman whose son lost his foot in a thrill ride accident.

... Campaigners, buoyed by a recent legal ruling in California that thrill ride patrons must be afforded the same level of safety as any passenger on a bus, are keen to use the Disney incident to keep the pressure on legislators. "As long as the law specifically exempts amusement park rides from the oversight of our nation's consumer safety agency, there will be a significantly higher likelihood of other families on other rides becoming victims." Markey said.

http://www.house.gov/markey/amusement.htm

A Democratic member of Congress, fighting the effects of de-regulation that occurred during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Obviously for no reason at all ...

[saigon68]

33. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts

should really worry more about the thousands of people being killed in the Bush Criminals War for Oil Part 2

[iverglas]

34. yes, I suppose he can only do one thing at a time

And I suppose you have a point. I just don't happen to know what it is.

Don't know Markey myself, but he looks not too bad to me, as US politicians go.

http://www.issues2000.org/MA/Ed_Markey_Abortion.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/MA/Ed_Markey_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/MA/Ed_Markey_Drugs.htm

Not as good on some other stuff, I'd say.

Did you have something you wanted to say? Not happy with Markey? Any particular reason?

I wasn't aware that it had become an offensive thing for Democratic members of Congress to attempt to regulate great big profit-making corporations, that the Republicans have allowed to run wild, in the interests of the public he represents, I must say.

Of course, it is 3 a.m., and not everybody who's up this late is drinking diet coke like me, I guess.

[fleabert]

78. he's been trying to push this thing thru for years.

I have spoken with three plaintiffs lawyers who specialize in amusement park claims that are drooling in anticipation of its passage. they didn't hold back in their opinion that this would be a major victory for them, more than actually making the industry safer...

[iverglas]

89. oooh ... how's that go?

Wealthy trial lawyers, are they? Where might I have heard that before?

I asked google ... and sure enough ...

http://www.google.ca/search?num=20&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22wealthy+trial+lawyer%22&meta=

Oh look! It's John Edwards, that Democrat guy on that Democratic ticket. Massachusetts liberal ... trial lawyer ... dirty words in some circles.

My understanding has been that he, for instance, while indeed enriching himself and some clients as a result of litigation victories, also prompted important changes that made medical practice safer, for the benefit of patients in general.

http://www.braininjurylawblog.com/brain-injury-news-35-association-of-trial-lawyers-of-americas-atla-annual-convention.html

The bad guys, obviously. Despicably, some of them are are ambitious and enjoy their work.

I don't get it. IF people ARE being unnecessarily injured on amusement park rides, why should changes NOT be made? (I mean, other than the obvious reason: that profits might suffer.) And if the owners do not make them, despite knowing of the problems or even having reason to believe that there could be problems, why should they NOT be liable for the harm? What makes them different from Ford and its Pinto, or any other purveyor of goods or services to consumers?

[fleabert]

99. no. I didn't talk to Edwards. but I did vote for him!

I never said wealthy lawyers. I said plaintiffs lawyers who specialize in theme park litigation.

the regs, as they are written, are flawed, imo. they will not protect the public, they will aid litigation.

people are not being unnecessarily inujured on amusment park rides.

edited to add that I voted for edwards, in case this became a 'you're not a real liberal' case. (not that you would do that, but someone else might, and I wanted to cut that off at the pass. I am a bleeding heart liberal who happens to not support federal regulation in this case)

[Moose_head]

35. When I was younger, I worked at Santa's Village- near Chicago-

I wore a beaver costume- but that's another story.

the park had a bumper-car ride that was set up as an oval "racetrack", rather than just a big open area where cars go around every which-way ramming into each other. there was an infield area in the center, with a raised gazebo where the ride operator sat, and called the race, and the cars all went around the track in a clockwise direction. Also- there was no roof, and the cars didn't have the long poles on them- all the power came from the metal floor.

One day, while i was working at the park(but not that ride) after a "race" was over, and all the people were exiting, one kid fell down...and wasn't breathing. There were paramedics called- we had 2 on staff, but the kid died. ultimately, after investigations and lawsuits, the child was determined to have died of "unproven electrical shock"- because it was the bumper car ride with the electrified floor...although there was no evidence of it(hence "unproven"). Everyone who worked there knew that it could not have been the electrical floor that killed him- the cars don't stop moving until after the power is out, and once it was off, there were two steps to turningit back on- it couldn't be done "accidentally".
BTW- I should mention that the park's head mechanic was a former member of the German navy who was a mechanic's mate on a captured u-boat in WW2...Heinz Stock- he was the bestest ex-nazi I ever new.

Anyway- during that same season, Great America(now 6 Flags) had introduced their new roller coaster- the Tidal Wave. and as part of the promotion of the ride, they had t-shirts that said "I Survived the Tidal Wave"...even tho' the ride had not caused any actual fatalities

So- in a spurt of what was to ultimately be unappreciated marketing genius, i reccomended to our park manager that WE should have T-shirts emblazened with "I Survived the Dundee Zizzler 500", and they would actually mean something because someone had actually died on our ride...
He DID see the humour in it, and while he was laughing- he may have even considered it for a second or two- but no shirts were ever made...
oh well.

[nomatrix]

36. I hope they never remove "ride at your own risk" signs

It's been a while since I've been there. (I did have Fla. resident season passes at the time cost $99 for 4 parks) I recall all the signs on the way through the line describing who should not ride. Made you think if you had the "right stuff" to take on the mission....

It's the little things you take note of when you do Disney till it's boring.
People watching, another favorite. Parents yelling at their kids to stop whining and or crying because we paid $$$$ and we are going to have fun.
There's a lot of stress with traveling to Fla. especially from another country, hours on the plane, airport checks, take your shoes off and on, check into the hotel, new foods and hard water, rushing around to all the best rides in the hot & humid florida weather.


Like I said, seasons passes meant I was there riding ALOT.

Then it hit.

I spent hours one day in the WDW clinic with a pounding headache and as soon as I lay on the cot fell right to sleep. I am not a "sleeper" wake at the slightest noise. I had to be woken. I just got there and only 3 rides.
Starting getting migraines, maybe the migraine was first. All I know,
after that I haven't had a desire to get on them.

[iverglas]

37. please read post 31!

and my other posts.

"I spent hours one day in the WDW clinic with a pounding headache and as soon as I lay on the cot fell right to sleep. ... Starting getting migraines, maybe the migraine was first."

You might truly be one of the people who has suffered a head injury on an amusement ride and not been diagnosed or treated.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11091294&dopt=Abstract
http://www.headachedrugs.com/archives2/roller_coaster.html

Title: Roller Coaster Migraine: An Underreported Injury?
Author: Juanita G. McBeath, MD; Anil Nanda, MD
Date: Posted August 2003
Source:Headache 2003;40:745-747

A 28-year old woman presented with severe headache, sleep problems, memory problems and irritability 2 months after a violent roller coaster ride. She was diagnosed with posttraumatic migraine, and intravenous dihydroergotamine resolved her symptoms. Imaging studies, electroencephalogram, and visual and auditory evoked responses were normal. Imipramine, divalproex sodium, and propranolol were prescribed to prevent the headaches from recurring and dihydroergotamine nasal spray was prescribed for breakthrough headaches. We consider the many short but significant brain insults delivered during the roller coaster ride a critical factor in triggering this instance of posttraumatic migraine, which while unmanaged was a source of significant disability for the patient.

Subdural haematoma isn't the only head injury that can occur on these rides:

http://headaches.about.com/library/weekly/uc-rollercoaster.htm

It took more testing from Dr. John Epley, a leading neurotologist specializing in head injuries, to receive a diagnosis — inner ear concussion syndrome. This turn of events taught me that headaches after violent acceleration, deceleration, or hitting your head, are severe cause for alarm — see a specialist. Be specific about how and where it hurts, what triggers it and, most importantly, any injuries that could explain why the headaches occur. I sometimes mentioned the roller coaster, and sometimes I forgot. The delay in my diagnosis came because I failed to make the doctors understand what happened on the day my injury occurred.

You should probably have gone to an emergency room when you first felt ill -- and the Disney World clinic should have had you taken there instead of letting someone with a possible head injury sleep for hours. Lordy. (When they're not required by law to report injuries, why would they draw attention to them?)

If you do still suffer migraines, it's worth taking some of the information about amusement park ride injuries to your doctor and having this possibility checked out.

[Coventina]

52. Sad story. I hope she will be okay.

But I agree with other posters in this thread that state that it is PROBABLY not Disney's fault. Apparently everyone who rode with the girl were okay.

Millions of people have enjoyed this ride and not gone into critical condition.

The bottom line is that amusement parks cannot be held responsible for hidden defects in people. If someone has a weak blood vessel in their brain, nearly anything could set it off.

You can't live your life worrying about the worst thing that could possibly happen in any situation.

[iverglas]

53. yeah yeah

Millions of people have enjoyed this ride and not gone into critical condition.

And millions of babies have been shaken and not died.

Why tell parents not to shake their babies, let alone make laws against such things ... and hold them criminally liable if they happen to have the bad luck of having the 1 out of a gazillion babies who dies ...?

But I agree with other posters in this thread that state that it is PROBABLY not Disney's fault.

Yes, and that's your expert and informed opinion, I'm sure. Knowing, as you and all the rest of us do, what her doctors have determined to be the nature of her injury and what they have determined caused it. Not.

The bottom line is that amusement parks cannot be held responsible for hidden defects in people. If someone has a weak blood vessel in their brain, nearly anything could set it off.

Indeed. And that might even turn out to be a relevant consideration in this case. Who knows?

You can't live your life worrying about the worst thing that could possibly happen in any situation.

Gosh, then I guess the victim in this case didn't do anything wrong?

I've always kinda thought that a big reason why we impose safety standards on those who provide products and services to the public is just that: so we don't have to spend so much of our lives worrying about the worst thing that could happen in any situation -- because someone is supposed to take steps to ensure that when they make a profit from selling us a good or service, they aren't endangering our lives.

Otherwise, we might just have to worry a little more, and those of us who didn't have the information we needed to know why we should worry might just end up in bad shape a little more often.

Anybody remember the Ford Pinto? Anybody remember how many actual deaths and injuries occurred as a result of its faulty design?

http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=142&did=772

Ford sold 2.2 million 1971-76 Pintos ... . At the time of the May 1978 defect determination on the Pinto fuel system, there were 26 known burn deaths in fire crashes.

26 deaths out of 2.2 million cars sold. Why would anyone think that serious enough to worry about -- let alone to demand that Ford recall 'em all, at a cost of who knows how many millions of dollars?

Why didn't all those Pinto drivers just not worry about the worst thing that could possibly happen?

And why would we need safety standards (surely not federal?) to reduce the chances of it happening?

I dunno, I'm sure.

[Coventina]

54. My differing opinion does not equate to a personal attack on you!

You don't approve of thrill rides, fine. Don't ride them.

If you think they are the horrible menace you seem to think they are, go ahead and work to do whatever you feel needs to be done.

I don't think that gives you the right to lecture anybody else who does not live in fear of roller coasters.

I'm sorry your father was injured. I can see where that would easily make you angry and bitter toward theme parks and extreme rides.

[iverglas]

55. yeah yeah

My differing opinion does not equate to a personal attack on you!

Nor did my opinion of your opinion equate to a personal attack on you, so I'm not sure what your point is.

If you think they are the horrible menace you seem to think they are, go ahead and work to do whatever you feel needs to be done.

If, if, if, seem, seem, seem.

Now, if I think that corporations that provide services to the public, for humongous profits, should be required to meet adequate safety standards in the process and not permitted to continue self-regulating (which they started doing under Ronald Reagan's great leap backward into deregulation) when they are apparently disregarding safety problems, well, I'll do what I think appropriate. Since those problems have not arisen in Canada to my knowledge, what I did do several years ago was contact Mr. Markey to provide information about my father's case. Not a whole lot more I could do, it seems.

Oh, other than offer information to a bunch of people, many of whom don't seem to have much interest in that kind of thing.

I don't think that gives you the right to lecture anybody else who does not live in fear of roller coasters.

I wouldn't imagine it did; gosh, did you think I did?

Actually, I was lecturing someone who didn't seem to think it necessary to consider the facts before plonking an opinion (about a stranger, the victim in this case) down in public. I couldn't care less whether such a person lives in fear of roller coasters, and said nothing that would suggest I do.

I'm sorry your father was injured. I can see where that would easily make you angry and bitter toward theme parks and extreme rides.

But it would be really too bad if you *did* see things that aren't there, eh?

Me, I can see where people who pronounce opinions about things they don't care to know the facts about and get called on it would get defensive and lash out and make insinuations about the motivations and feelings of people they don't know, without any basis ... and I do see it quite frequently around this place.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. But Canada doesn't have the population or the number of amusement parks

It just seems a little off to compare the two. There have been deaths on Canadian rides as well, notably the little boy's death on the Jimmy Neutron ride after the car they were riding in broke off.

Other incidents in Canada include the silverstreak incident, the flavourator incident and the Jumpin Jet incident.
I agree no conclusions should be drawn until the results are in though.

[iverglas]

59. for the love of mike

But Canada doesn't have the population or the number of amusement parks
It just seems a little off to compare the two.

Who the fuck was comparing anything?????

I was responding to the comment:

If you think they are the horrible menace you seem to think they are, go ahead and work to do whatever you feel needs to be done.

by pointing out that SINCE I DO NOT LIVE IN THE U.S., and since there have been no recorded injuries of this type in Canada (and it appears that the kind of devices on which they seem to occur do not exist in Canada), there isn't much I CAN do.

Yes indeed -- there are unlikely to be such injuries in Canada because there are few, if any, of the kinds of amusement park rides that they seem to occur on. And yes indeed -- this would likely be because of the economies of scale involved, and the fact that it would not be as profitable to operate such devices here.

Um, so what?

There have been deaths on Canadian rides as well, notably the little boy's death on the Jimmy Neutron ride after the car they were riding in broke off.

Yes indeed. There have been malfunctions and injuries and, I think, a death in my own city.

Can we see that there is a difference between an injury caused by malfunction and an injury caused by the ride working exactly the way it is designed and operated to work?

The regulations designed to reduce the possibility of malfunction need to be followed and strictly enforced.

And we have such regulations:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:www.canlii.org+canlii+regulations+midway+-haines
just as jurisdictions in the US do for travelling midways.

But my province's regulations, for example (there being jurisdictional issues here too, and this being within provincial jurisdiction) DO apply to "fixed sites" -- permanent amusement parks -- and DO require reporting of "accidents or incidents" and DO require inspections by official inspectors for those fixed sites -- unlike US state regulations:
http://www.canlii.org/on/laws/regu/2001r.221/20050511/whole.html

I'd say that those regs may not be adequate to deal with the design problems that appear to cause head injuries, but so far it seems not to be an issue.

But really, none of this has anything to do with anything I said.

[Coventina]

58. I'm really not sure what you are hoping to achieve

If you don't like the opinions you see around "this place" then maybe this is not a healthy environment for you.

If you are looking for people to join you in fighting for more regulation, there are better ways than the accusatory, angry, and strident tones you have used throughout this thread.

Maybe theme parks DO need more oversight. I'm sure you are probably more well-read on the subject than I. But the tone of your responses to me does not incline me to want to work with you.

And as far as the Pinto analogy goes, it doesn't really apply in this case. If the ride had crashed or malfunctioned, maybe. But it didn't. The other people who rode with the girl were fine. That would indicate that the problem was something to do with the girl.

[iverglas]

60. quite obviously

"I'm really not sure what you are hoping to achieve"

You might make an actual informed guess, though, based on what I said earlier:

1. I actually have a clue what I'm talking about.

2. When I don't have enough facts to reach a conclusion, I don't leap to the nearest convenient one.

Extrapolating, we might imagine:

1. I hope to share information with people who can use it.

2. I hope to deter people from leaping to wild conclusions -- and potentially influencing other people to their detriment or harming other people's reputations without any ground.

Now, if only I knew what you were hoping to achieve by saying what you originally said. But then, I didn't think that anyone needed to explain that to anyone else here.

If you are looking for people to join you in fighting for more regulation, there are better ways than the accusatory, angry, and strident tones you have used throughout this thread.

Sometimes, it's just better to be all that than to be self-absorbed and baselessly judgmental of strangers, or to baselessly seek to absolve someone/something of responsibility when one doesn't have a clue or has an agenda and influence others by speaking from that ignorance or agenda. Speaking generally.

But the tone of your responses to me does not incline me to want to work with you.

Oh well. The only "work" I'm doing is trying to raise awareness of the possibility that a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit. I'd actually thought that this would be an easier job in a place like this than it seems to be.

And as far as the Pinto analogy goes, it doesn't really apply in this case. If the ride had crashed or malfunctioned, maybe. But it didn't.

Oh dear. Neither did the Pintos. They were just driving along minding their own business when something else crashed into them. No crash or malfunction at all. See the point?

The other people who rode with the girl were fine. That would indicate that the problem was something to do with the girl.

No, actually, it MIGHT indicate that the problem was something to do with the girl. It MIGHT ALSO indicate that something was wrong with the design of the ride.

Maybe if some of those Pinto drivers hadn't been tailgating and forced to stop so suddenly that they were rear-ended, they wouldn't have died in the ensuing fire. So why blame Ford for the problem?

And I still want to know what's "wrong with" the few babies who die after they're shaken, when so many babies are shaken and suffer no ill effects at all. Surely this indicates that the problem is something to do with the babies.

Some people jump from high bridges and survive.

Some things are inherently risky, even for people with nothing wrong with them at all. The fact that the risk does not materialize every time the things occur or are done does not mean that they are not risky -- or that anyone should be allowed to profit by putting people at that risk.

Now, you're the one who chose to express an opinion on this matter in public (and chose not to address any of the things that had already been said, in the discussion you jumped into, about that opinion). If you don't like the "tone" of a response, well, I don't particularly care, any more than you evidently care about what I care about. We all have our likes and dislikes. You do what you think best, and I'll do the same.

[Coventina]

61. Wow, talk about assumptions

"a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit."

[iverglas]

63. wow, talk about misquoting

The nice little snippet of a sentence that you quoted:

a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit

The minimum snippet needed if the effect is not going to be to totally and utterly and completely misrepresent what I said:

the possibility that a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit

Imagine; if I'd said "there is a possibility that it will rain tomorrow", you could, er, quote me as saying "it will rain tomorrow". Couldn't we just have fun?

Amazing what some folks can do with that cut&paste function, isn't it?

And there just ain't a danged thing that other folks can do about it. Except point it out.

Kinda like pointing out that there is the possiblity that a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit.

We done yet? I have to say that this sort of antic sort of makes it done for me. But maybe if you come up with something to support your initial assertion:

it is PROBABLY not Disney's fault

-- or explain why you'd make it if you didn't have anything to support it -- you can let me know.

[Coventina]

64. Yes, we're done.

:eyes:

[fleabert]

82. you bolded it that way...

doesn't that mean you wanted to emphasise it? I certainly didn't notice any bold on the word 'possiblity'.

[iverglas]

92. take a grammar course, 'k?

[fleabert]

98. ah jeez.

[fleabert]

81. Comments like this are going

to land you in my sparsely populated ignore list. that and your overuse of bold...such as:

a hugely wealthy corporation is knowingly endangering people for profit.

but you are only angry with the manufacturers, not the operators, right?

[iverglas]

93. let me help you out

I use bold for two purposes:

- to make it clear when I am quoting the post to which I am responding

- to emphasize something in other text, when it won't be mistaken for a quotation from something to which I am responding.

Being reduced to complaining about someone's typeface ... sad.

Being reduced to threatening to ignore someone who doesn't give a shit ... sad.

Being reduced to repeating the misrepresentation perpetrated by someone else, knowing it is a fabricated depiction of reality and a false characterization of anything said by me ... priceless, really.

I wonder how I managed to gore your personal ox here. I could speculate ... but hell, that just wouldn't be moi.

[fleabert]

96. holy overreaction batman!

[iverglas]

56. "Disney ride girl still 'critical'" (in hospital)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/4680327.stm

A teenager from Leicestershire remains in a critical condition after suffering a heart attack following a ride at the Disney World theme park in Florida.

Leanne Deacon, 16, from Kibworth, was taken to hospital and underwent emergency surgery on Tuesday.

She was transferred by helicopter to a specialist unit in Orlando.

The emergency surgery, of course, was performed by the neurosurgeon who -- very fortunately -- happened to be at the hospital where she was first taken.

The media are generally completely missing the nature of her injury -- apparently a brain injury -- and focusing on the heart attack she suffered afterward.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/hi/news/5041071.html

Leanne Deacon, 16, complained of a headache and dizziness as she got off the Tower Of Terror yesterday morning but told her mother she would be all right.

She was led outside but deteriorated and was taken back in, where it was cooler, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff said.

Disney staff called paramedics and she was rushed to the Celebration Hospital.

On the way she lost consciousness and suffered a heart attack, and was resuscitated. The spokesman added: "They considered flying her to a specialist facility but there happened to be a neurosurgeon in the hospital at the time."

[tammywammy]

62. Just a FYI

a neurosurgeon doesn't only do brain surgery. They work with the brain, spinal cord and nerves. I've personally visited a neurosurgeon for lower back pain.

So, while this girl visited a neurosurgeon, it doesn't mean that it was for necessarily a brain injury.

[iverglas]

66. very true

What is unlikely, however, is that she "visited" a neurosurgeon -- i.e. was rushed into surgery from the emergency room after being resuscitated en route -- for a cardiac condition.

Another imaginable possibility is a cervical artery dissection:

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/cdn_medical_association/cmaj/vol-163/issue-1/0038.htm

... there was a predominance of vertebrobasilar artery dissections compared with carotid artery dissections (72% v. 28%). Most (81%) of the dissections were associated with sudden neck movement, ranging from therapeutic neck manipulation to a vigorous game of volleyball, but some occurred during mild exertion such as lifting a pet dog or during a bout of coughing.

The vertebral artery is extremely vulnerable to torsion injury because it winds around the atlas to enter the skull: any abrupt rotation may stretch the artery and tear the delicate intima. Thrombosis formed over this vascular injury may subsequently be dislodged and may embolize to the brain. ...

And yup, those have been associated with roller coasters as well:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7658882&dopt=Abstract
"Roller-coaster-induced vertebral artery dissection"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10705892&dopt=Abstract

Neurological complications after roller coaster rides: an emerging new risk? (Article in French)

... Complications seen our patients included 5 cervicoencephalic arterial dissections, one with brainstem dysfunction due to extending syringobulbia. Reported data include one cervicoencephalic arterial dissection, one case of carotid artery occlusion, 3 cases of subdural hematoma, one with subarachnoid hemorrhage, one with cerebrospinal fluid leak, and one with Brown-Sequard syndrome secondary to an enterogenous cyst of the spinal cord. In all patients, pain was the first symptom experienced. In 71.4% of cases, it occurred immediately after the trauma. Marfanis syndrome may be the only risk factor identifiable prior to exposure. The mechanisms of most complications are poorly understood but are likely to involve sudden head and neck flexion-extension movements.

CONCLUSION: Neurological complications occurring after roller-coaster rides are highly uncommon, but may leave invalidating sequelae or be fatal. Clinicians should be aware of these complications so these patients can be given proper care early, particularly at the stage when pain is the only sign. Early management could help limit the consequences of these complications.

So, while this girl visited a neurosurgeon, it doesn't mean that it was for necessarily a brain injury.

Nope ... but somehow I just can't imagine what else the emergency surgery the neurosurgeon performed, in an attempt to save her life, would have been -- besides treatment for a subdural haematoma, a dissected artery or something equally serious pretty closely associated with the brain.

http://www.fcer.org/html/News/canneur.htm
(not my favourite kind of source, but I think this list is probably reliable)

REPORTED ACTIVITIES INVOLVING THE CERVICAL SPINE SUSPECTED OF BEING INVOLVED WITH DISRUPTION OF *CEREBRAL CIRCULATION*

(Age not a factor)
Postural head changes
A bleeding nose
Radiographic procedure (vertebral artery angiography)
Angiography
Archery (bow hunter)
Rap dancing
Athletics
Reversing a vehicle (see ‘backing up’)
Axial traction
Roller coaster
Backing up a car
Self manipulation ‘clicked on turning’
Beauty parlour
Self manipulation (rapid)
Birth trauma (see also ‘childbirth’)
Sitting in a barber’s chair
Bread dancing (see also rap dancing)
Sit-up exercises
Callisthenics
Sliding head-first down a water slide
Childbirth ‘doubtful relationship’
Sleeping positions
Contraceptive pill
Spontaneous rupture of aneurisms
Coughing
Spontaneous turning of head
Dental procedure
Spontaneous vertebral artery dissection
Diving into shallow water (see ‘falls’)
Star gazing
During surgery
Stooping to pick up a bucket
During x-ray examination
Surgery, neck positioning during anaesthesia
Emergency resuscitation
Falls (minor)
Swimming
Falls causing hyperextension
Tai chi
Fitness exercise
Telephone call (cordless)
Football
Traction of cervical spine
‘Golden Gate Bridge’ syndrome (sightseeing, San Francisco Bay Bridge)
Traction and short wave diathermy
Trampoline
Gymnastics
Trauma
Hair dressing
Turning one’s head
Hanging out washing
Turning one’s head while driving
Head banging
Under anaesthesia
Motor vehicle accidents
Voluntary movement
Neck callisthenics (Tai chi)
Watching aircraft
Ophthalmological perimetric visual field examination
Whiplash
Yawning & vigorous stretching (anterior spinal artery)
Overhead work
Painting ceiling
Yoga (‘Bridge’ or ‘Back push-up’)
Post-operative complications of thyroidectomy
Yoga (rotating head)

Rome PL. Perspective: An overview of comparative considerations of cerebrovascular accidents. Chiropractic Journal of Australia 1999; 23(3): 87-102.

People *can* do these things to themselves, but they *can also* have them done to them.

[fleabert]

84. we need federal oversight of yawning. nt

if it didn't violate my privacy, reveal who I worked for, or wasn't propietary information, I would post some warning signs from popular roller coasters. they are explicit.

[Ilsa]

67. Some people are born with microscopic

abnormalities in the structure of the brain. Sudden pressure from a rapid deceleration or a brain shift can cause an aneurysm, bruising, etc.

I'm glad I haven't done all of those rides.

[iverglas]

71. and now, a few actual facts

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/custom/tourism/orl-bk-disneystatement071305,1,4886714.story?track=mostemailedlink
(my emphases)

Posted July 13, 2005, 2:59 PM EDT

... The teenager, Leanne Deacon, 16, remains in critical condition at Florida Hospital Orlando this afternoon. According to an Orange Sheriff's Office report, the girl had visited the park six times in the past week with her mother, June, 54, who reported they rode the Tower of Terror "many times" with no problem.

Leanne Deacon exited the thrill ride at 9:50 a.m. Tuesday, shaking and light-headed, and soon lost consciousness. By the time she arrived in an ambulance at Florida Hospital Celebration Health, her heart had stopped beating and she had to be revived, Orange County Sheriff's spokesman Jim Solomons said. The sheriff's report says a CAT scan showed the girl had blood on her brain and required emergency surgery. She was later transferred to the Orlando hospital. The report quotes June Deacon as saying her daughter "is very active, athletic, jogs regularly, and is in great health, so this has been a shock to her." But, according to the report, she also told investigators the girl "had been complaining of headaches and leg cramps for several days."

The family declined requests for an interview through a Florida Hospital Orlando spokeswoman. She said she could release no other details about Leanne's condition or her treatment.

"Blood on her brain" is layperson lingo for "subdural haematoma".


(edited to fix html)

[colinmom71]

75. Based on this, I'd have to wonder if there's a history...

Of DVT's (deep vein thrombosis) in the family. It's quite possible that she had a blood clot in her leg for a while (causing the leg cramps) that had shifted to her brain during the time the family was at Disneyworld (causing the headaches).

Combine a DVT shifting into a cranial vessel with an already formed AVM (arterio-venous malformation), blocking blood flow beyond the AVM, and you've got a recipe for a burst aneurism. With the blood pressure being driven higher by being on a thrill ride, it's quite possible the increased blood flow lead to a blockage and further damage of a vessel weakened from a malformation... It sounds like it could be just a tragic and previously unknown problem with the girl's physiology...

[iverglas]

80. yes

And all the other people who have had neurological injuries on amusement park rides had all those things too.

Except my father didn't. (And, because he was on medication, he also didn't have hypertension.)

Forgive me. Speculation is really fun, but some of it really is just tortured.

Yours is obviously a *possible* explanation of the case -- but the fact that there is a record of subdural haematomas / cerebral artery dissections among roller coaster riders who did *not* have such conditions, and the somewhat rare nature of the condition among adolescents, suggests that it might not be the actual one.

I emphasized the portions of the report that indicated not only that she had been experiencing headaches prior to the incident, but also that she had gone on the ride several times previously (and, I think it would be safe to say, other rides as well). I know of at least one report of a case in which it was apparently the repeated trauma of several rough roller coaster rides that caused the bleed that led to the subdural haematoma, which is why *I* thought the (unconfirmed) earlier headaches might be relevant.

[pimpbot]

79. Damn dude

Give it a break. Its a thrill ride. If you think there is 0% chance of you getting hurt before you ride one of these things, thats your own fault.

What do you want Disney to do? Tear this ride down? What about the millions of people that have enjoyed riding it and will ride it again? Should we close all amusement parks because there is a slight chance we will get hurt on the rides?

I get on these rides cuz I like excitment. It helps to get through my 50 weeks a year of desk job boredom. I know I can get injured/dead/maimed, but I still do it, and damn it feels good. I don't want anyone imposing regulations on these rides. Every year, I go check out who has the newest fastest biggest ride, and go ride it.

I see no wrong here by Disney, it is just an unfortunate situation for this girl. Had a wheel fallen off because Joe Mechanic forgot to grease it, then I could see blaming disney/mechanic.

I can't wait till you pick apart my "flawed logic and false statements"...

[iverglas]

83. bully for you

I don't want anyone imposing regulations on these rides.

And I, or anyone else should care ... why was that, now?

For the record, I am very fond of amusement park rides myself. I insisted that my co-vivant take me to the local summer exhibition last year so that I could hit a few of my old favourites I hadn't seen in several years. Unfortunately, he's a snivelling wet blanket, so I didn't get to go on the ones I craved ... but I did have to put up with the horrible Himalaya and its hideous blaring sirens ... and him snivelling because it wasn't quite as tame as it had appeared ...

I learned my love of rides from my father. (If you've read anything else in the thread, you'll know what that's about.) My father was the kind of customer that amusement parks want and seek out. He took us kids on all the rides when we were little and created a whole new generation of customers, and he was taking his grandson on them the weekend he suffered the brain injury.

Had a wheel fallen off because Joe Mechanic forgot to grease it, then I could see blaming disney/mechanic.

Yeah, sure, but don't blame the multi-billionaires who make the actual design decisions when someone's brain bleeds and heart stops. Even if it does turn out that the ride was the proximate cause?

I can't wait till you pick apart my "flawed logic and false statements"...

Logic isn't the word I'd describe for any of it.

[fleabert]

86. federal regulations will not address design decisions, those are made

by the manufacturer, unless the theme park operator self produces and builds a ride.

federal regs address the operation of the ride, and a centralized data base that is flawed in design, imo.

[iverglas]

104. well the thing is

You're the one kicking up the brouhaha about federal regulations. My initial references to Ed Markey's site were informational -- to provide people with background to the alleged problem of injuries associated with amusement park rides. I have no axe to grind on the question of his legislation.

Post 9 (emphasis added):

A member of the US Congress -- Edward J. Markey, D-Massachusetts -- has been working on the issue of amusement park ride safety for some years; there is a lot of info linked to here:
http://www.house.gov/markey/amusement.htm

See?

And jurisdictional disputes in someone else's country kinda bore me. But damn, I do seem to notice them being instigated, not infrequently, by people who just don't want anything being done about something. "States' rights" ...

"federal regs address the operation of the ride, and a centralized data base that is flawed in design, imo."

Fascinating. So maybe you could suggest a better way of addressing design flaws that lead to injury, if it is reasonable to think that such flaws exist and such injuries occur. I mean ...

"federal regulations will not address design decisions, those are made by the manufacturer, unless the theme park operator self produces and builds a ride."

... one would hardly get far saying that there's just nothing can be done about automotive design flaws that lead to injuries to car rental customers, because the manufacturer made those decisions.

Dancing on the points of jurisdictional pins may be fun for, oh, constitutional lawyers, but it doesn't do a whole lot to solve problems.

[fleabert]

105. can I call you Boldie?

[fleabert]

121. the federal regs that are proposed at this time do not address design,

but only address operators.

can you respond without quoting me?

[iverglas]

124. how 'bout if I quote me?

Fascinating. So maybe you could suggest a better way of addressing design flaws that lead to injury, if it is reasonable to think that such flaws exist and such injuries occur.

I can do it again, if you want.

Or you could answer, instead of trying to pretend that I have raised an issue, or proposed an action, that I have never raised or proposed.

[pimpbot]

119. So what are you trying to accomplish?

i read your million posting on this thread, but I couldn't figure out what you want the amusement parks to do? Close down the "dangerous" rides? (Who decides which is dangerous?) Put more warning signs up?

Millions of people visit these parks year after year, and the few deaths that happen get a lot of media attention. But you can die anywhere. People have heart attacks in their office building and die. Maybe this girl would have had the same thing happen while playing a sport. To me the random occurance of these brain injuries points towards existing conditions that are worsened by the extreme nature of these rides.

I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. :)

[iverglas]

123. quelle surprise -- I wasn't "trying to accomplish" what you imply

i read your million posting on this thread, but I couldn't figure out what you want the amusement parks to do?

Amazing!

I wonder whether this could be because my posts were not about what amusement parks should do?

My posts were about what people who choose to express opinions in public about other individuals, and about matters of some public importance, should do.

What they should do -- in my very humble opinion -- is get a clue.

The purpose of my posts was to offer such a clue, and urge some people to get it before attempting to influence other people's opinions.

My very first post was written for that purpose: post #9 in the thread. I presented the facts of my father's case. I provided references to other cases. I critiqued an industry response to the problem. I liked to Ed Markey's site for people who wanted more information. Damn me, what a thing to do.

My post received no response until the next day, and that response wasn't really worth mentioning.

In the interim, a series of people decided to offer their opinions about liability, based on "theories" about what had happened and whose fault it was. None of these people had a clue either about the actual possibilities concerning what had happened or about what had actually happened.

I find the expression of opinions of that nature to be offensive (when they relate to individuals not present to defend themselves against factually false allegations) and potentially harmful (when they influence others to believe something that is contrary to fact or to take an unsupported position on a matter of public policy).

So then I tried to direct people's attention to the real facts of the case in question, and to point out that not enough facts were known to draw any conclusions -- about either the nature of the injury or the cause of the injury and possible liability for it.

But nooooo. This was apparently just moi trying to tell other people what to think, and grinding some private axe of my own. Well, I'm not anyone's mirror, and the fact that so many people do do these things does not mean that I do.

To me the random occurance of these brain injuries points towards existing conditions that are worsened by the extreme nature of these rides.

And really, I don't give a shit. I'm sure you find your opinion fascinating, but I don't.

And really, I expect someone who states an opinion like that to be willing to discuss it and offer something persuasive in support of it. That would be something else I was trying to accomplish -- to get someone to actually DISCUSS something.

So maybe you'd like to answer the question I've asked several times: does the random occurrence of death among babies who are shaken mean that those babies have some existing condition that the shaken babies who don't suffer head injuries and die didn't have?

There is no dispute that there could be, and in some cases almost undoubtedly is, a combination of factors that contribute to these roller coaster injuries. The most likely one would be repeated trauma, from multiple rides. (Imagine, I linked to an article on that very point.) Now, if someone could point to a warning posted by ride owners to the effect that one should only take one ride per week on rides of a particular class, that factor would be of some relevance in determining liability.

On that note, let's get back to some facts:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/orl-locdisneyfolo14071405jul14,0,6466455.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Over and over again, Leanne Deacon rode the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror thrill ride without a hitch. The British teen had visited Disney-MGM Studios six times in a week.

Before Leanne, 16, suffered cardiac arrest Tuesday -- minutes after exiting the popular attraction -- Leanne's only recent health complaints were headaches and leg cramps, according to details released in an Orange County sheriff's report Wednesday.

... A CT scan showed the teen had bleeding in her brain and required emergency surgery, the report states. She was later transferred to the Orlando hospital.

Facts, damn 'em. (Well, some, anyhow. "Without a hitch" would not be a fact if Deacon had actually already suffered some injury on a previous ride, of which she was unaware -- as might be suggested by her experience of headaches prior to the last ride.)

Ya can't eat 'em, ya can't take 'em to a baseball game, but sometimes, you can think about them. And heck, maybe even acknowledge them.

[fleabert]

85. this proves nothing to me.

she knowingly rode when "had been complaining of headaches and leg cramps for several days.". perhaps she could have gotten checked out sooner? perhaps it was pre-existing?

who knows. that's the problem with this, you can get a subdural hematoma from sneezing if you are pre-disposed, who's to say she didn't sneeze right before she rode, and the ride exacerbated it. G-force research doesn't back the idea that roller coasters are the be all end all for causing this problem. We face high g-forces every day.

[iverglas]

95. gee

G-force research doesn't back the idea that roller coasters are the be all end all for causing this problem

If only someone had said they were.

But oops, I misunderstood. What you REALLY said was:

roller coasters are the be all end all for causing this problem

May I quote you?

[fleabert]

97. no you may not quote me. nt

[coolhandlulu]

116. Personally...

I think you thrill seekers need to be shaken up a bit. You guys are crazy.

[seeminer21]

128. I've been on that ride!

I swear I thought I was having a heart attack! It's scary..... but fun. This was a freak accident.