The Water That The Coast Guard Won’t Save You From

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/but-not-simpler/2014/05/16/water-coast-guard-wont-save/#.U3ed4i_c0wU

by curtis • 12 years ago

59 49 12 years ago

blogs.discovermagazine.com

Oh electricity, such a wild beast. If we only could find a way to turn it off again after we've let it go.

Yetanfou• 12 years ago

Of course they could turn it off, but then the army of carp just waiting outside the parasitic barrier would take its chance and colonise the lake. Hence, no turn-off, at least not for both barriers at the same time.

DoggettCK• 12 years ago

Clever girls.

voidlogic• 12 years ago

They just have multiple barriers with sufficient separation for rescue operations... this would allow them to turn up to n-1 barriers off.

Codhisattva• 12 years ago

Great innovation. That invasive carp is crap for ecosystems.

JshWright5• 12 years ago

"It seemingly goes against all a rescuer’s training"

Perhaps, but only if you don't have any training as a rescuer... Rescuer safety is always the first priority. A rescuer becoming another victim is just about the worst case scenario in any operation. It dramatically increases the resources needed, and does nothing to benefit the original victim.

My safety (and my crew's safety) first, _then_ the victim. We don't do them any good if we're dead or injured.

That's not to say you don't take calculated risks to effect rescues... That's the nature of the game. It's all about risk vs. reward. Entering electrified water to recover someone who is very likely already dead is an extremely high risk for a very low reward.

Source: Firefighter/Paramedic

angersock2• 12 years ago

That's generally why we don't see emergency response folks running to the side of an injured person, right? No reason to slip and add injury to injury?

jmadsen2• 12 years ago

I think people mistook this as a troll, but that's my understanding, yes.

Often times an injured person is in the middle of an area where caution is needed when approaching by others; EPs are taught to approach carefully, not run into the area.

JshWright5• 12 years ago

Assuming you're serious (which I believe you are), you're spot on. When approaching someone who has been injured, it's important to ensure the same fate doesn't befall you...

Paramedics don't run towards victims, they approach cautiously, keeping a close eye on the scene around them. Firefighters don't "run" into burning buildings (despite what script writers think...). We enter very carefully, often on hands and knees), pounding the floor ahead to make sure it's still there...

dfc8• 12 years ago

  > Source: Firefighter/Paramedic

Ugh, HN can we please resist adopting "the reddit meme of providing a snippet of biographical information which (supposedly) establishes your authority to speak on the subject."[^1]

For a long time the unofficial motto of the CG was "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back."[^2] Does your local firefighting department use USCG Green Amber Red risk management/assessment procedures?

[^1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21qxao/brief_...

[^2]: http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/LSSmotto.asp

JshWright5• 12 years ago

Sorry, didn't mean to offend.

I wasn't speaking about the practices of the Coast Guard specifically. The author of the original article generalized to "rescuers" which _is_ something I can speak about authoritatively, reddit memes not withstanding...

Our risk assessment is based on various SOGs, which are, in turn, based on NFPA and NIST guidelines.

vacri5• 12 years ago

Is the problem the declaration, or the format "source:foo"? Because people have identified themselves as a 'foo' for years here when making a point on a topic outside HN's usual scope, and in this case it's perfectly relevant. "I am a professional rescuer, and this is how we're trained".

kens3• 12 years ago

Personally, I find it very helpful to know if someone has experience with what they are saying versus repeating something they read on a blog once. (Obviously the former could be wrong and the latter could be right.) And if I'm posting something, I try to make it clear if it's something I know or something I'm just guessing at.

FireBeyond3• 12 years ago

There are SOPs and guidelines, and when you're in an incident command position here, you're given a lot more training on survivability and risk assessment, but as a general principle, there are few firefighters who would not find it the noblest of deaths to die (attempting to) rescue someone.

"I'm going into that building because I have $4,000+ worth of gear on to protect me and bring out someone who doesn't."

versus the same situation where smoke has long since filled to the floor, meaning, in all honesty, that you're doing victim recovery.

But... that doesn't mean we (and especially any commander) should make a decision to increase risk beyond reward for themselves or their crew.

For a good, real insight into the mindset at play - and sincerely without attempting to play the 'hero' card (most of the people I know in Fire/EMS are some of the more humble you'll meet - we get to do an amazing job that, difficult as it is, is utterly rewarding at times), check out Burn: A Year On The Frontlines in Detroit as something real, in what would be unanimously described as the "worst" FD in the country (situation, circumstance, budget, management - not line staff).

vacri5• 12 years ago

Here in Australia, first aid is trained in the acronym "DR ABCD" as an order for dealing with people in distress. It started out as ABC, but they keep on finding things to add. Anyway, the very first letter is 'Danger'. Before going to help, make you're you're not in danger, and consider further dangers to the patient. So even in first aid, it's one of the first things you're trained in; it was a strange line to come across in the article.

judk• 12 years ago

Or is the last D for "danger" ? Acronyms get ambiguous

FireBeyond3• 12 years ago

"We don't do them any good if we're dead or injured"

Not only that, we then actively risk the lives of others in our crew.

For similar reasons, fully involved empty building? I'm not sending my guys in there without a very good reason.

Source: another FF/PM

GuiA2• 12 years ago

Why not have a net of some form on the surface of the water?

mAritz• 12 years ago

The wording of the citation makes it seem like there are vessels traveling along this canal.

GuiA2• 12 years ago

Ha yes, upon closer reading of the article, makes sense.

vacri5• 12 years ago

They have a net, but it's in the form of a fence to keep you away.

dredmorbius• 12 years ago

Linkbait title. "Chicago's Electric Dispersal Barrier and Water Safety" would be much more informative. Or something similar.

negativity• 12 years ago

  At the river bottom there are multiple 160-foot wide grids
  of electrodes issuing 2.3 volts per inch every 2.5 
  milliseconds.

  According to safety reports, if you swim at almost any 
  point within the range of the electric barriers that span 
  the channel, you risk either involuntary muscle
  contractions or ventricular fibrillation.

I wish the article provided better information about the electrical hazard. A mere 2.3 volts (per inch) doesn't sound hazardous at all, so I'm wondering if immersion in water (distribution over surface area), significantly changes the effects of the electrical field, or is it induced with very high amperage, or is the frequency (2.5 kHz) disruptive?

If the surface area of an average human body is ~2 square yards, then the total delivered electrical shock sounds like it's in the 10,000 volt range, which is more readily understandable.

kens3• 12 years ago

I don't know any more about this than the article, but 2.3 volts per inch works out to 165 volts across your body if you are 6 feet tall, which I would expect to be deadly.

FireBeyond3• 12 years ago

Voltage across your body is not likely to be deadly.

MILLIamps (~50 or so) can be enough to electrically disrupt your heart and put you in a dysrhythmia.

pgrote• 12 years ago

This is a photo of the construction process used to build the barriers.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/usacechicago/6482344737/

The Water That The Coast Guard Won’t Save You From

Related Stories