As a man's body floats in three feet of water, 25 emergency workers stand and watch

[Lars77]

The picture that shames Britain: As a man's body floats in three feet of water, 25 emergency workers stand and watch because they aren't 'trained' to go in water

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106423/Simon-Burgess-body-floats-Walpole-Park-pond-emergency-workers-stand-watch.html#ixzz1nXAC0ZMy

MoS investigation into park pond tragedy and emergency services’ response reveals:

Rules that stopped firemen entering water were meant for fast-flowing rivers
Coalition ‘common sense’ report gives green light for heroes – but was ignored
Our reporter, in pair of waders, took two minutes to reach spot where body floated

[Odin2005]

1. That is just pathetic.

[FarCenter]

2. It sounds as though the UK has rather comprehensive safety regulations

[Lars77]

3. More regulation than common sense, thats for sure.

Seems like the rules they were following were designed for fast rivers or something. This is just shameful.

[Brother Buzz]

4. Similar thing happened in San Francisco Bay

Policy forbids police, fire crews from saving drowning man



06/01/2011

by Katrina Schaefer

There’s a growing controversy this week after a man drowned in San Francisco Bay while police and firefighters watch from the shore. Crews reportedly could not rescue the suicidal man because of a policy tied to budget cuts.

This happened in Alameda, which is across the bay from San Francisco.

A 911 call was made reporting the man had waded into the bay.

He reportedly stood in the 54-degree water for nearly an hour walking further and further out in front of a crowd of 75 people, including the firefighters and police officers.

He eventually drowned and police and firefighters said they wanted to save the man.

However, a policy strictly forbids them from carrying out water rescues. They said it's a funding issue and that they don't have the equipment or the training.

Read more: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/now_at_nine/policy-forbids-police,-fire-crews-from-saving-drowning-man#ixzz1nXD05pNu

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Acually that is completely different

and a place where the policy made sense.

They did not have cold water rescue gear and this was a man who was going to fight the rescuers...

The UK case involved a shallow body, no issues with cold water mostly, and sadly the victim was already floating.

[Brother Buzz]

7. How so? Both cases, policy prevented rescue

Why would Alameda fire/police carry cold water rescue gear if they were not authorized to use it?

Note: Today, Alameda funds the training, and they have the necessary gear.

[stevenleser]

8. You just contradicted what you wrote before

Your previous post said they did not have the equipment or the training.

The waters of San Francisco bay are very cold and have dangerous currents.

[Brother Buzz]

9. They did not have the equipment or the training and were NOT authorized to enter the water

How is that contradiction?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. You go ahead and go into water in the 50s

and with swift currents.

Yes, they could have done it, IF they had BOATS... and COLD WATER gear...

By the way BECAUSE of that they NOW have the required GEAR and the TRAINING TO USE IT.

Compare to the British situation.

1.- Fairly shallow water, you still could drown though.

2.- Water was not in the fifties nor did it go all the way to chest, person in waders shows that... yes it matters for core body temperature.

3.- Pay attention this matters, NO CURRENTS.

You see the policy in Alameda County applied to CURRENTS... which those waters are FAMOUS for... TIDE currents... the policy in the UK was written for SWIFT WATER rescue, such as what you find yourself doing at rivers, which this shallow body did NOT have.

See the difference?

By the way I used to do this shit for real, the EMS shit that is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Just on one point - I'd expect outdoor water in March in the UK to be below 50 Fahrenheit

though, as you say, it's not up to the chest, so the chilling effect won't be so much.

Given an average daily air temperature of about 7 centigrade = 45 Fahrenheit in mid-March, I'd expect the water to be about the same (maybe a degree or two more, since the graph is for central England, and this was the south coast).

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. and I expect it to be a doable rescue, even without the specialized equipment

this actually falls in the category of "I know what regs say, I am going in."

It also falls in the category of after we get our patient out of the water, we go into medical tent, undress, to skivies and change into dry clothing. I am sure they had at least a few extra blankets.

And it is a BIG exception to the never violate regulations.

And yes, there are exceptions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Yeah - I would have thought it's the kind of thing the public might try

If you don't know what the bottom is like, it might be a problem - but once the fire brigade was there, they would have had a rope for basic 'pull the rescuer back if they get into trouble' situations.

This was in a town - there'd be buildings to go into to get warm, as well.

[Brother Buzz]

15. Nope! Both cases, crews were not authorized to go in water

Alameda is famous for tide currents?

Blossom Rock, Point Knox, Cone of Alcatraz, Harding Rock, Potato Patch, Raccoon Strait, Point Blunt, Point Bonita, Blackaller Buoy; these and a few other cool places that are famous for bizarre currents on the bay. Almeda is kinda lackluster with regard to currents; the water goes in, the water goes, and at very predictable speeds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Why was the policy written?

Care to explain it? I used to write some of this shit by the way.

I will give you a free clue... it usually involved a death in the line of duty that was preventable for doing something stupid. It easily could be going into ocean water to be a hero, that was under 65 and dying from hypothermia and drowning.

Regardless, you go in into water that is all up to your neck, to fight a suicidal man, that is in the fifties. Go ahead...

Please do.

As I said, you are comparing apples and kumquats and the policy in the UK was MISUSED since you are forgetting to mention it was also written for SWIFT WATER rescue, which this WAS NOT.

This was NOT a swiftly moving body of water... it was an artificial fountain.

And it was about three feet deep.

And the patient was NOT going to fight anybody by the time they arrived on scene.

It is not an ideal situation but it is a DOABLE rescue... even by personnel NOT trained in water rescue. There is a reason why Lifeguards are a SPECIALITY in the rescue services, let alone swift water rescue experts and Coastie Swimmers. It is not just done... and it is considered a high threat environment.

Alameda... not so much... not without quite a bit of specialized equipment AND yes TRAINING.

On the plus side, Alameda learned the lesson in blood and got them the gear and chiefly TRAINING...

[Brother Buzz]

17. The policy was not the problem, it was the interpretation

Alameda was three-four feet of water. Wet suits and paddle boards. Good cop, bad cop, and a cowboy, all willing to think outside the box, plus a savvy watch commander close to retirement willing to run the gauntlet; it's easier to ask forgiveness then permission.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. And it is also easy to tell the family, truly

sorry Joe ain't coming home tonight. I am sorry. I guess I did it right... the closest I got was... "Ma'am your son broke his ankle in the line of duty, we are taking him home." (And I got to drive the ambulance on that call, whoohoo... always LOOK where you place your foot, serious... he did not... foot onto hole it goes)

For that I count my damn blessings.

I have had to make calls that involved water. I mean seriously I have.

We had a SIMILAR situation to the UK one... my call was, we did it, and did not wait for the water rescue folks. Yup, on the after rescue analysis it was the RIGHT call, nobody got hurt and patient ended up in ICU... we also had WARMER water so hypothermia was never truly an issue for any of us... and when the water rescue folks showed up, they got to watch patient loaded into Paramedic rig. Oh well. I was too busy to cancel them... ooops. (And my radio, which does not like water, staid on the rig)

We also had a call to a sports center... I let THEIR lifeguards do the actual water rescue and took over patient at the side of pool... and my all time favorite, a guy into the septic tank... EEEEWWWWW... hypothermia saved his but that day by the way. And that involved both Water rescue AND Hazmat... a TWOFER!

On the other hand we also had a similar situation to Alameda, MY CALL was my people staid on shore until the specialists showed up... we were lucky, when they showed up he was still alive, and it took three boats, and fifteen personnel to fight one man. That is the reality check of the day. He did NOT want to be rescued, PERIOD!

Ten years of EMS can give you at times similar experiences.

I have had also confined space rescue experience, those are duzzies... and fires, and hazmat... and cars, and mountain rescues, and structural fires and wilderness fires (that was just one... scary shit) and a riot... as well as the Cartels... At times I just look back at those ten years and realize I WAS NUTS! But it is good kids never know how vulnerable we are. Then we grow up.




Also there is something to be said for playing sunday morning well you know... but in the case of the brits... I think they made a mistake.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. There are reasons NOT to go in

but I would have... it is not like this was a swift moving body of water...

And yes, there are MANY VALID reasons why you usually do not have emergency workers doing things they are NOT certified in. As I used to tell my kids most of those regulations are written in blood... BUT... there are times you should be able to break the rules.

From photos this seems like one of those where yes... I would have...

Of course I was not there, so this is judgement well after the fact... but yes, those rules are written for FAST MOVING water.

[Nye Bevan]

11. Jobsworth, jobsworth, it's more than my job's worth....

I don't care, rain or snow, whatever you want, the answer's "no".

[PotatoChip]

18. ?

I don't care if the water was 3, or 300 feet deep... the article says that the 'man's body was floating'

-Umm, a very bad sign. Though I am not familiar w/water rescue tactics, either here or abroad, my guess is that they (the people on-scene) may have deemed the man beyond help. Iow, dead on arrival. Sadly, sometimes that is very clear to first responders. Even upon a cursory glance.

The question then becomes who is to retrieve the body?

The whole thing is horribly sad, and I hope it will be much more thoroughly investigated. However, thus far, I have no idea why 'The Daily Mail' is choosing to point fingers at public servants.... In fact, apparently making THAT more of the story rather then the poor deceased guy himself. Wtf?

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. It's not just the Daily Mail, in this case

People who are alive float as well. Yes, there is a good chance that he was already dead by the time the rescue services got there. But you can't tell that for sure from 25 feet away, and it's possible he was unconscious but still alive (they still had the air ambulance helicopter when the water-trained people did finally go out to him). From the people who do the most rescuing from water:

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution said the only instances in which its rescuers would not attempt resuscitation would be if a body was already decomposing, or had been submerged for more than 90 minutes. Rescuers in the US believe a person can be revived after being immersed in water for up to an hour.

Professor Mike Tipton, of Portsmouth University, concluded in a report for the emergency services last year that if ‘water temperature is warmer than 6C (42F), survival is extremely unlikely if submerged longer than 30 minutes’.

Chances of survival are much higher if water temperature is lower than this, but not if the body is submerged for more than 90 minutes.

He produced examples of people who had been saved after submersion of between 20 and 60 minutes.

Or Defra (the government environment department):

A Defra spokeswoman explained: ‘Our guidance is only ever to be used by the emergency services in response to a flood. This is because floods by their very nature are highly unpredictable, unlike existing bodies of water. Our guidance should never be used in any other instance.’

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Water was cold

so he was most likely hypothermic, that is colder than normal.

The saying in English goes, you do CPR on cold bodies until they are warm and they are still dead.