Goddammit, use your fucking dictionaries! (Very nitpicky)

[OtakuLoki]

This story is an account of a very human tragedy. In the course of doing routine farm work, a build-up of methane gas in a pit caused first the family's farm worker to collapse, then the family, one-by-one to collapse as they tried to affect a rescue.

The incident is, as I said, a very human tragedy - the methane build-up in the pit would have been completely colorless. As some of our more scientifically minded Dopers have been pointing out in the flatuence thread, methane itself is also odorless. There are two hazards to methane build-ups - the potential for explosive gas mixtures, if there's enough oxygen in the atmosphere; and methane can form 'bubbles' of the gas, displacing rather than mixing with the normal air that we all breathe. When that happens, it can be very, very hard to recognize that what one is breathing is not air, but a gas that is displacing air, and offering no benefit to the person trying to breathe it.

But for all the hazards of methane build-up, methane itself is not a toxic substance. If that were the case people would have died in some of the accounts in the flatuence thread. It can be deadly, in the circumstances mentioned above. But it is no more toxic than neon gas is.

Originally Posted by linked article

Showalter was overcome by the toxic methane gas and collapsed. Within a matter of seconds he was deceased, he said.

For that matter, the lead sentence of the linked article refers to a 'poisoning!' They weren't poisoned - they were asphyxiated, dammit. Smothered. Drowned, even. Overcome is fine, too. They were killed because methane won't support respiration, and in this circumstance it built up a bubble excluding normal air. Unless one is running a DHMO-type scam people would never talk about water being toxic, even though it can kill someone who tries to breath it.

But it's not a fucking toxin, and it didn't poison anyone. Deadly, yes. Toxic, no.

With the public being assaulted by this kind of misinformation, it's no surprise to me that so many people start listening to the various quacks offering to de-toxify their bodies, or straighten out their magnetic fields.

*sigh* It's not only taking longer than we thought - we're losing ground, dammit.



(Mind you, a quick look at various on-line dictionaries has been disheartening to me:

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster online

1 : containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>
2 : exhibiting symptoms of infection or toxicosis <the patient became toxic two days later>
3 : extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful <toxic sarcasm>

That does lead one to believe that even though methane isn't a toxin, it can still be legitimately called toxic. This isn't the first time that I've felt that M-W falls short of the mark, but I usually do have to admit that it does a decent job of reflecting actuall use definitions, rather than what purists such as myself would like the words to mean.

Dammit, it's still wrong. For that matter - this cite agrees with me.

Hey, I did say it was nit-picky.)

[An Arky]

I know it's probably snipped from a quote, but it sure looked funny to see this:

Showalter was overcome by the toxic methane gas and collapsed. Within a matter of seconds he was deceased, he said.

"dang, I was overcome by that methane, and before you know it, I was dead!"

[MsRobyn]

::searching mental database of journalistic writing techniques::

Ah. It's true that "asphyxiated" is more technically correct than "poisoned." But stand on the street corner sometime and ask the first ten people who walk past you what "asphyxiated" means. I'll give you cash money if more than three or four people can tell you what it means.

Reporters don't have the luxury of being able to be that technically correct. They have to be understood by Joe Sixpack, who has a sixth-grade vocabulary and who probably neither knows nor cares what "asphyxiate" means. He doesn't care how the people in the story died, just that they did. So the reporter goes with the simplest explanation, and if it's technically wrong, so be it. At least she got the basic facts right, which is that the methane killed them.

ETA: Oh, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch only said they were "overcome" by the gas, not that they were asphyxiated or poisoned.

The whole thing is tragic, but let's not bog down that much.

Robin

[OtakuLoki]

MsRobyn, that's why I suggested "smothered" as a both simpler and still technically correct word.

But, yeah, I do see how it happened. It's just that I believe that this kind of sloppiness with language does have an effect greater than this one story - to use legal terms, it builds a precedent for the incorrect usage of the word. Often with unforseeable consequences down the road.

I don't believe that law courts are the only place where strict definitions of words matter. If for no other reason than because if words that are used for legal definitions (And off the top of my head, I suspect that "toxic" is used in several defining clauses in, say, the Clean Air Acts.) have those definitions changed in common parlance, it leads to a double-tiered set of definitions: one for the courts, and one for the rest of us. Which then leaves us having to agree that one can legitimately say things like, "Well, it depends on what your definition of is is."

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

MsRobyn, that's why I suggested "smothered" as a both simpler and still technically correct word.

But, yeah, I do see how it happened. It's just that I believe that this kind of sloppiness with language does have an effect greater than this one story - to use legal terms, it builds a precedent for the incorrect usage of the word. Often with unforseeable consequences down the road.

I don't believe that law courts are the only place where strict definitions of words matter. If for no other reason than because if words that are used for legal definitions (And off the top of my head, I suspect that "toxic" is used in several defining clauses in, say, the Clean Air Acts.) have those definitions changed in common parlance, it leads to a double-tiered set of definitions: one for the courts, and one for the rest of us. Which then leaves us having to agree that one can legitimately say things like, "Well, it depends on what your definition of is is."

IMHO, "overcome" is the best word. It's accurate and non-judgmental. "Smothered," while technically correct, connotes deliberate action.

Second, I'm not sure what you're getting at with this "legal vs. common" usage. Journalism (or, really, any writing intended for a mass audience) is a balancing act between comprehension and accuracy, and most reporters and editors strive for a happy medium. Technical details, such as what you're complaining about, are secondary. Why include them when your readers won't understand them and you haven't the space to explain them?

Robin

[Scarlett67]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

as they tried to affect a rescue.

*cough* effect *cough*

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Scarlett67

*cough* effect *cough*

Mea culpa.

[Scarlett67]

No worries, just yankin' ya. Gaudere strikes again!

[Cat Whisperer]

I agree with OtakuLoki, but then again, I'm horribly nit-picky at things like this. I think your writing, speaking, and thinking should all be as precise as you can make it.

I see your point, too, MsRobyn, but I think writers can dumb it down for the audience without actually being incorrect. Lord knows, those of us with large vocabularies do it plenty of times each week.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by featherlou

I see your point, too, MsRobyn, but I think writers can dumb it down for the audience without actually being incorrect. Lord knows, those of us with large vocabularies do it plenty of times each week.

Oh, believe me. Writing would be a pleasure if every reader were as intelligent as the average Doper. Until we win the war on ignorance, that ain't gonna happen.

Robin

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Ah. It's true that "asphyxiated" is more technically correct than "poisoned." But stand on the street corner sometime and ask the first ten people who walk past you what "asphyxiated" means. I'll give you cash money if more than three or four people can tell you what it means.

Be that as it may, it seems to me that it would be better to use a simpler term that means the same rather than a term that's wrong altogether. Especially when it's supposed to be informative.

[danceswithcats]

Preach it, sista!

While we're in ignorance fighting mode, a steel-toed size 12 up the caboose of every journalist who says the firefighters were wearing oxygen tanks, masks, or some variant.

Those tanks contain good old fashioned air. NOT pure O₂. 100% oxygen is in the ambulance, the welder's shop, but NOT on the firefighter's back.

*sigh*

[Squink]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

But for all the hazards of methane build-up, methane itself is not a toxic substance.

Methane is also a lighter than air substance. Did they have the manure pit sealed off to prevent normal mixing? You'd think there'd be a 90 year old building code to prevent such idiocy.

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Squink

Methane is also a lighter than air substance. Did they have the manure pit sealed off to prevent normal mixing? You'd think there'd be a 90 year old building code to prevent such idiocy.

I have learned from my husband, the safety officer, that pit work is considered confined space work, and everyone working in that pit probably should have been wearing personal protective gear that could have prevented anyone from getting hurt (aside from suffocating, they could have died from a collapse of the walls, too). A hazard assessment performed before work commenced could also have prevented this.

There is still a lot of danger from private job sites like homes and farms; the safety protocols from commercial jobs would go a long way there. How many times have you seen people working on their own or their neighbour's roofs without proper fall protection? In Alberta, any worker working over 10 feet up is required to have proper fall protection on at all times because a fall from over 10 feet can kill you (the odds of surviving a fall of 11 feet are 50%).

I realize how silly it sounds to talk about doing things like hazard assessments before commencing work on the pig pit, but as this thread shows, there are lethal hazards present in many places we don't traditionally think of in terms of a dangerous workplace.

ETA: I just realized that the pig pit was probably not a deep one, therefore there probably weren't any walls to collapse.

[Sapo]

Originally Posted by An Arky

I know it's probably snipped from a quote, but it sure looked funny to see this:

Showalter was overcome by the toxic methane gas and collapsed. Within a matter of seconds he was deceased, he said.

"dang, I was overcome by that methane, and before you know it, I was dead!"

This was the first thing I noticed and what I thought the rant was going to be about.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

::Reporters don't have the luxury of being able to be that technically correct. They have to be understood by Joe Sixpack, who has a sixth-grade vocabulary and who probably neither knows nor cares what "asphyxiate" means. He doesn't care how the people in the story died, just that they did. So the reporter goes with the simplest explanation, and if it's technically wrong, so be it. At least she got the basic facts right, which is that the methane killed them.

Robin

Yes and no. It's true that the average person isn't all that sophisticated, but Joe Sixpack is capable of learning. As long as the media talk down to what they assume is the level of the audience, that audience will remain technologicly ignorant in an age when survival is dependent on technology.

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

. . . . It's just that I believe that this kind of sloppiness with language does have an effect greater than this one story - to use legal terms, it builds a precedent for the incorrect usage of the word. Often with unforseeable consequences down the road.

Nitpick: You do know that, technically, precedents are set, not built.

::d&rs::

[Sailboat]

Technical query: the lniked reporting contains more than one reference to "dead within seconds." If methane is displacing air, but I can hold my breath for 3-4 minutes, did methane really kill "within seconds?"

Sailboat

[OtakuLoki]

I don't believe it did kill within seconds. Incapacitate, yes. Kill, no. From what I recall with my training vis-a-vis non-toxic atmospheres, the person inhaling the gas will generally not notice that s/he isn't getting any oxygen (It can be mistaken for simply the symptoms of being panicked in an emergency situation.) and so, often the first symptom that's impossible to ignore is when one grays/blacks out. At which point it's impossible to rescue oneself, and death will follow from anoxia within four to five minutes. So the effect of the incapacitation is that death will follow inescapably.

If one could be removed from the anoxic environment, however, recovery is possible, and usually complete. (I'm basing this on my R-12 training, but I can't see why it wouldn't be equally valid for methane, or any other anoxic, non-toxic gas.)

If you read one of the articles further, I can't remember which, there's some question whether all the victims were smothered by the methane, or whether they actually ended up drowning in the slurry of sewage at the bottom of the pit. And that no autopsies will be performed, because the exact mechanism of death isn't very important.


ETA: While this further inaccuracy in the story does annoy me, too, it's not precisely the fault of the reporter - the 'dead within seconds' assertion is coming from the Sheriff, IIRC.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

But it's not a fucking toxin, and it didn't poison anyone. Deadly, yes. Toxic, no.

But you're bascially saying that methane isn't deadly, either, right? Otherwise quacks could sell products to ward off "deadly methane". I understand what you're saying, but it killed them so therefore it (at the levels it was at) is deadly and toxic.

[OtakuLoki]

gigi, hundreds of people die every year from drowning. But you wouldn't call water toxic, would you? To my mind, it's the same sort of thing: Things can be deadly without being toxic. (Admittedly, in spite of the M-W definition I quoted in the OP. )

[Johnny Hildo]

The only way this OP could get any more anal would be if Autolycus' ladle made a surprise appearance.

[Chief Pedant]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Oh, believe me. Writing would be a pleasure if every reader were as intelligent as the average Doper. Until we win the war on ignorance, that ain't gonna happen.

Robin

Winning the war on ignorance requires transmission of knowledge and not intelligence. These are two entirely different concepts although they are often confused, as with methane toxicity and asphyxiation.

A stupid person may be knowledgeable about a particular fact.
An intelligent person may be ignorant.

There is a loose correlation between the two in the sense that a certain amount of intelligence is required to retain, catalogue and appropriately regurgitate knowledge.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by featherlou

I have learned from my husband, the safety officer, that pit work is considered confined space work, and everyone working in that pit probably should have been wearing personal protective gear that could have prevented anyone from getting hurt (aside from suffocating, they could have died from a collapse of the walls, too). A hazard assessment performed before work commenced could also have prevented this.....

They were Mennonites. Protective gear proably means a heavier apron. A hazard assessment probably involves prayer.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

They were Mennonites. Protective gear proably means a heavier apron. A hazard assessment probably involves prayer.

I understand what you're saying, but honestly, I think that most people don't think about the hazards of pit, or enclosed space work. Especially when it's in their everyday environment. Even more especially when it's a low-tech everyday environment. Blaming it on their sect's rules towards modern technology is the easy answer, and I think an incorrect one.

[Cat Whisperer]

Depends on what kind of Mennonites they are, too - are they Old Colony Mennonites who adhere strictly to the old teachings, or are they modern Mennonites who you can't tell from anyone else and who live and farm like anyone else?

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

This story is an account of a very human tragedy. In the course of doing routine farm work, a build-up of methane gas in a pit caused first the family's farm worker to collapse, then the family, one-by-one to collapse as they tried to affect a rescue.

The incident is, as I said, a very human tragedy - the methane build-up in the pit would have been completely colorless.

What's the dictionary say "human" means?

-FrL-

[Frylock]

If they were killed by asphyxiation, why were they dropping after just a few seconds of exposure? I can hold my breath for longer than that.

Also, how did the two kids die? It doesn't say. Did they run in to rescue their parents?

-Kris

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by Frylock

If they were killed by asphyxiation, why were they dropping after just a few seconds of exposure? I can hold my breath for longer than that.

Also, how did the two kids die? It doesn't say. Did they run in to rescue their parents?

-Kris

Usually when a person times themselves for holidng their breath, they've begun by hyperventilating, first, to get the maximum load of good air in their lungs possible. And, it's not normally being done while one is in a panic, having seeng one's husband/boss/father and mother collapse for no apparant reason.

Normally, when one is panicked, one has shortness of breath, and other symptoms that can mask the feelings of the onset of anoxia. Which is what I'd been referring to when answering Sailboat's question about how the fatalities happened. It becomes very easy for the victim, if they have no idea that they're in an oxygen-free environment, to not realize that they're not getting any benefit from what they're breathing. So, the victim has no reason to use any of the tricks that one might use to maintain consciousness and effectiveness while holding one's breath.

As for the kids, it's hard to say exactly what happened. I seem to recall one theory that the mother had them come into the pit with her to help her get people out. But, my understanding is that there's no direct observation of what happened. This quote from the Richmond Times Dispatch article MsRobyn linked is the only one I recall seeing that attempted to explain how the girls became involved:

Originally Posted by Richmond Times Dispatch

Based on a witness' observations and on how the bodies were arranged, authorities speculated that Phyillis Showalter then went into the pit along with her two daughters.

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by Chief Pedant

Winning the war on ignorance requires transmission of knowledge and not intelligence. These are two entirely different concepts although they are often confused, as with methane toxicity and asphyxiation.

A stupid person may be knowledgeable about a particular fact.
An intelligent person may be ignorant.

There is a loose correlation between the two in the sense that a certain amount of intelligence is required to retain, catalogue and appropriately regurgitate knowledge.

I'm not arguing that Joe Sixpack couldn't or wouldn't benefit from education. I am also appalled that the standard for writing is so low; my own "natural" writing style (that is, when I'm not writing for publication) is somewhere around college/graduate level and I get cranky when I'm told to dial it down.

However, news is a business, and most editors understand that they must cater to that common denominator in order to survive. They know that Joe Sixpack does not want to read his newspaper with a dictionary at his side; he wants to be able to understand what's written quickly and easily, at a level that is comfortable for him. News editors want to sell their product, so they must appeal to Mr. Sixpack. Unfortunately, that may mean not being technically precise. Local editors must consider that many people in the area may already know something about the subject; for example, in a rural area, farmers may be familiar with manure pits and the methane they produce, so there is no need to belabor what is, to them, the obvious.

Truth be told, I like the Richmond Times-Dispatch's approach. They used the word "overcome" in their article, which is understandable without being completely inaccurate. They also had a sidebar, at least on their website, that explained the dangers of methane gas. Thus, Joe Sixpack gets the necessary information from the main article, and if he were curious about the dangers of methane, he could read the sidebar, too.

There are ways to offer information that Joe Sixpack can comprehend, while still being educational. Using language that sails right over his head ain't it.

Robin

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by MsRobyn

Truth be told, I like the Richmond Times-Dispatch's approach.

So do I.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

In the course of doing routine farm work, a build-up of methane gas in a pit caused first the family's farm worker to collapse, then the family, one-by-one to collapse as they tried to affect a rescue.

The build-up of methane gas was doing farm work? So I could just sit back and let the gas do my work for me?

a nitpick for a nitpick

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by gigi

The build-up of methane gas was doing farm work? So I could just sit back and let the gas do my work for me?

a nitpick for a nitpick

Or perhaps the routine farm work involved building a pit and filling it with methane gas?

[Larry Mudd]

I thought folks in this thread might appreciate this snapshot of the marquee sign outside my local community center, which I took today after doing a double-take yesterday.

Agony! Agony!

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

I thought folks in this thread might appreciate this snapshot of the marquee sign outside my local community center, which I took today after doing a double-take yesterday.

Agony! Agony!

MY EYES!!

[Dolores Reborn]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

<snip>As some of our more scientifically minded Dopers have been pointing out in the flatuence thread, methane itself is also odorless. There are two hazards to methane build-ups - <snip> If that were the case people would have died in some of the accounts in the flatuence thread. <snip>
Hey, I did say it was nit-picky.)

Bolding mine... I looked throught the whole article for obvious spelling errors, then came back and read the OP. For shame!

I agree with the posters saying that the use of the word "overcome" was a good choice. The technical details of toxic vs non-toxic methane wouldn't be relevant to me, a city girl. The article got across the tragic facts.

:: crossing fingers that Gaudere doesn't get me ::

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Dolores Reborn

Bolding mine... I looked throught the whole article for obvious spelling errors, then came back and read the OP.

Sorry. You can't fight Gaudere. Or City Hall.

[OtakuLoki]

Originally Posted by gigi

Sorry. You can't fight Gaudere. Or City Hall.

Don't lie. Of course you can fight City Hall. And Gaudere.



You won't win, but that doesn't mean you can't fight 'em.

[descamisado]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

Don't lie. Of course you can fight City Hall. And Gaudere.

You won't win, but that doesn't mean you can't fight 'em.

People should keep fighting, someday, someone'll win. And build a precedent.