The Water That The Coast Guard Won’t Save You From
blogs.discovermagazine.com
blogs.discovermagazine.com
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
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.
"Am I putting myself or anyone else in danger?"
"Am I treating the highest priority situation? Helping the most seriously injured person that I am able to help?"
"Am I assessing the entire situation, rather than fixating on the first thing that catches my attention?"
Running into the scene with adrenaline pumping can be a recipe for starting sub-optimal response (albeit starting it a few seconds earlier)
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...
Similarly, listening to an EMT describe with exasperation that no, they are not going to go provide aid within range of a suspected person who's armed and dangerous; let the cops secure the scene first.
> Source: Firefighter/Paramedic
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_...
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.
The Pjs are the least risk averse rescue group that I can think of and even they consider the risk of life when planning conducting operations. The PJs' creed is one of my favorites:
It is my duty as a Pararescueman to save lives and to aid the
injured. I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties
quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before personal desires
and comforts. These things I do, that others may live.If you and I were having a lively mature discussion/disagreement about something would you accept "because someone on the internet said so" as evidence that your conclusion was false? Would it make a difference if I told you that the pseudonymous internet commenter signed their comment "Source: I am a XYZ"?
Well, yes. Not ironclad authority, but it does actually provide context to their commentary. If the occupation wasn't declared, that context would be missing. It also opens the door for other professionals to say "I also -foo- and we -bar- instead". It would provide a different context had it instead been 'park ranger' or a directly article-relevant 'coast guard in Illinois'.
For comments like this one, about rescue procedures, the scope for fake commentary isn't particularly high anyway. It's not a hot-button topic and the commentary isn't at fever pitch (when you stop believing anything anyone says).
On Hacker News, from a commenter with an established reputation? It would definitely make me reconsider.
More importantly, the line helps establish the context and scope of the observation. "Source: I'm a firefighter" both establishes that this person is speaking from experience and training regarding emergency response, and it establishes that the person is not a part of the Coast Guard and therefore their observation may not necessarily reflect the specific details of CG procedure vs FD procedure.
1) this is not a contentious discussion wherein someone might be tempted to fake credentials/experience in order to "win" one side of the argument (low reward)
2) HN is the sort of place where you tend to run into people with various types of experience, which also means people who fake credentials/experience have a hard time passing themselves off as legitimate (high risk)
3) the commenter in question has an established HN profile, which is evidence (though not proof) that he says generally correct and worthwhile things. It seems unlikely that he'd spend as long as he has cultivating his profile/comment history and then suddenly decide to make up a bogus firefighter story for no reason.
4) In the highly likely event that the guy isn't lying, my statement stands: including "source: I'm [job]" is a useful statement because it establishes the context and scope of the observations being made, particularly the type of experience and the degree to which it relates to the article in question. It's not, as you suppose, a comment designed to "win" or "shut down" discussion; it's a way to provide readers with information that helps them understand the perspective being shared and helps them understand what types of questions different people in the discussion might be best suited to answer.
My theory of internet discussions is there are three styles: "scientific conference", where participants try to say accurate things to reach factual conclusions; "debate team", where participants are trying to win for their side; and "cocktail party", where participants are having an interesting conversation. The problem is that you're trying to apply "scientific conference" rules to a HN "cocktail party" conversation, and it's not a good fit. (I'm sympathetic to the "scientific conference" viewpoint, by the way.)
To answer your question above, I don't view "Source: XYZ" as a fact, but I consider it as helpful information. (i.e. they probably aren't lying about being XYZ, and probably know what they are talking about, so I'll take what they say as having a good chance of being true.)
Adding the "Source: XYZ" is troubling for me because it seems to evoke some magical air of authority from thin air. Summoning this cloak of superiority/authority is out of place among friends, just as out of place as someone showing up to a cocktail party in a lab coat. Good faith comments made among colleagues should not require sources, but if sources are required, legitimate verifiable sources should be used.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the "source: XYZ" comment in this and many other HN discussions. It's not meant to create an undeserved air of authority. It's meant to help contextualize the information being given.
When I talk about math curriculum, I usually tell people I teach fourth grade math in an inner-city school. That helps people understand that I'm talking from that perspective, rather than the perspective of a parent or an administrator. It also helps people understand how closely my experience matches the specific situation being spoken of (same grade level? Same demographics?) and it suggests which lines of inquiry I'd be most helpful in addressing (ie, "what does it cost to purchase district-wide curriculum" is beyond my expertise, but "how do your students handle such-and-such concept" is a great question.) It doesn't prove I'm a world-class expert or that nobody can argue with me or otherwise unfairly imbue my comment with false authority.
I think this is actually normal in cocktail party type conversations. "I heard this thing about [topic]." "Oh, I'm actually a [job] and here's some additional detail about [thing and topic] based on my experience."
So to me, as long as the "source: xyz" is critically related to the discussion at hand, it is worthwhile. This instance was one of those cases.
On the other hand, statements beginning "as a parent..." (the requirements for being a parent vs. earning a PhD being the key difference) typically are not critically related to the discussion at hand, and in those instances are quite annoying and do beg the "air of authority" that is absolutely undeserved.
I would say I see a lot more of the the later on reddit than on HN. This discussion on reddit likely would have had a different progression.
Hopefully the correlation between my (years old) username and the name on the card is close enough to meet the (hopefully fairly low) burden of proof for an online messaging forum.
It's cool to see the card, though :)
"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).
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
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.
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.
MILLIamps (~50 or so) can be enough to electrically disrupt your heart and put you in a dysrhythmia.
Open the outer door, enter the middle area, wait for the inner door. (lather, rinse, repeat for n > 2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_%28artillery%29#Moving_...
So there would be a number of active zones at a time, each one slowly moving downriver, pushing back any invading carp in front of them.
You could switch off the electrodes in any section of the river, and then when you switch them back on again later, the pattern sweeps any occupying invaders back out.