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. 
)
The only way this OP could get any more anal would be if Autolycus’ ladle made a surprise appearance.
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.
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.
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?
What’s the dictionary say “human” means?
-FrL-
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:
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
So do I.
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?
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!! 
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 ::
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.
People should keep fighting, someday, someone’ll win. And build a precedent.