To miss the days when people were just 'thirsty'?!

[Babycham1979]

What's all this shit with, 'hydrating'? It's called drinking fucking water!

Whenever I hear someone claiming to be 'dehydrated', I want to reach for my revolver. No, dear, you're not dehydrated, you're just thirsty. It won't hurt you to wait twenty minutes for a drink.

Advanced capitalism, combined with nanny-statism seems to have fostered a nation of adult-babies who can't got five minutes without a snack, needing a piss, or a plastic bottle to suck on. It truly does my head in.

I can't remember the last time I sat through a film or a play without multiple audience members nipping out at least once during the show. Yes, I do appreciate that SOME people suffer incontinence, or might have needed a shot of insulin but, come on, not on this scale!

Ha ha!!! Oh dear Charis did you honestly think someone was recommending drowning. Did you not notice the word drowning?

That's beautiful!

Charis - are you on a different planet or just a GF?

Well, ArgyMargy, if you're only drinking when you're actively thirsty then you are quite possibly chronically mildly dehydrated, so yes there are health consequences - see above for details. This chronic mild dehydration is part of the reason why hospital admissions for kidney stones has increased by over 60% in the last decade.

I'd imagine water in your bloodstream is the least of your worries if you have already drowned.

You have countered other points on this thread, and yet you STILL haven't told us how you are so totally au fait with the exact advice treaclesoda was given by her consultant and nurse, Charis.

No, miscellaneous, read it back yourself. The poster was under the impression that she would save her children from drowning if she emptied water out of their lungs.

This is a dangerous level of ignorance. If a child ( or adult for that matter) gets into trouble in water, sea/ bath/ paddling pool/ swimming pool or anywhere, and you pull them out and get the water out of their lungs, they can be sitting up, walking and talking, and STILL be in danger of death by drowning, as the water would have entered their blood.

This is particularly true of bath water and paddling pool water, which tends to be "purer" and therefore more toxic.

I sincerely hope that the enjoyment some posters have in ridiculing science and calling me names is not going to prevent anyone taking on board life saving information.

Sorry I can't help finding this hilarious!

For Charis benefit, here is the definition of drowning:

You really won't get far by pretending sallys science is 'wrong' by deciding that she's recommending drowning! Which is, in case you weren't aware, a way of dying, so yes indeed, it is 'DANGEROUS'!

Your posts aren't helping you in your bizarre crusade. They aren't making you look like The Authority on all water related matters. Really.

She never mentioned saving her children from drowning, or did I miss that bit?

At no point did Sally say that.

That's some impressive misrepresentation there!

because you assume that if anyone drowned we'd just take the water out of the lungs then let them walk about, without requesting any medicall assistance at all?!

Oh dear

This thread is fascinating. I really have to ask Charis when you say that water doesn't hydrate someone, do you mean that it isn't as effective at hydrating as other fluids or that it doesn't hydrate the drinker at all?

It depends.

If your blood is concentrated, water is helpful.

In most cases, water is harmless, although overdoses lead to illness very commonly, and death a few 10s of times a year in the uk.

However, if your blood volume is low, water doesn't help, you need something closer to being isotonic ( which incidentally, natural river water is likely to be it is much less "pure" than tap water) in order to increase volume. teaa, coffee, squash, etc are all better for this.

Generally drinking water just leads to the body peeing it out. Not that that is a particular problem, in moderation. it is a myth that urine should necessarily be light coloured though. That is just drinking too much water, normally.

Quite Treacle, maybe I've missed something though I've read it a few time to try and see how someone could misread it.

I can only think it's in the invisible text around the edges of the posts.

But drowning is fatal therefore getting water out of the lungs wouldn't matter because the person would be dead.

Except in the movies where they would cough up a mouthful of water and swoon at the sexy rescuer.

And we have a breakthrough!

look people of MN Charis admitted that water can be helpful!

what? I can't believe my eyes, bht it happened! WOW!!

Misc

yep, those invisible footnotes can fool anyone!

Drowning (fluid filling the lungs) on the other hand, will not lead to any fluid getting in the blood at all. Unless you swallow water before you drown. In which case it gets into the bloodstream as described above.

look, this is what Sally said.

ignore the fact that her "description above" is also misunderstandings of simple science, she thought that drowning didn't involve fluid entering the blood.

I don't really care how hilarious you find it that I have taken her potentially lethal misunderstanding seriously, I hope she now does understand that water entering will enter the blood of a child who has inhaled it, and it might very well kill them, even if they show no ill effects t the time.

Zing how dare you say my mothers donkey looks like a cucumber [affronted face]

Sorry it's just the invisible footnotes again :)

look people of MN Charis admitted that water can be helpful! err, go back a few pages, this is exactly where we started, there isn't any dispute about water being helpful/mostly harmless, this thread is about the sucky sucky psychological dependency, which so many adults are enjoying, and is based on hocus pocus science about hydration.

But if someone has already drowned how can they later be harmed by water in their bloodstream? I don't get it. If they've drowned they will already have shown ill effects. Like being, well, drowned. And therefore dead.

Misc

what do you mean? I didn't steal your hedgehogs wellies!

treacle

well maybe they are further harmed after death because umm....nope, nothing

Daaaamn you! [shakes fist at the hedgehog boot stealing hussy]

Right, that's it [360 flounce]

I'll be back to put acorns in your shoes and immac on your curtains... Oops did I say that out loud? Damn the invisible post highlighter is on the blink

because you assume that if anyone drowned we'd just take the water out of the lungs then let them walk about, without requesting any medicall assistance at all?!

Sallysparrow apparently would have, as she believed Drowning (fluid filling the lungs) on the other hand, will not lead to any fluid getting in the blood at all and so presumably that removing water from the lungs of someone who has inhaled it would therefore remove the danger of death from drowning.

But if someone has already drowned how can they later be harmed by water in their bloodstream? I don't get it. If they've drowned they will already have shown ill effects. Like being, well, drowned. And therefore dead.

the point is, deaths from drowning can happen long after the person has been removed from the water, and is walking , talking and feeling normal, due to the water that has entered their blood stream, particularly bath water, which is relatively "pure"

[reportsMisc acorn related threats]

None of which is relevant to the adult baby suckling bottle debate, but is very important for all parents to understand, and who knows, this thread may save a child's life, if there are people reading this who genuinely did not know that.