• Two volunteer rescuers killed in Harvey floodwaters after bringing families to safety
    9 replies, posted
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/two-volunteer-rescuers-killed-in-harvey-floodwaters-after-bringing-families-to-safety/[/url] [quote]On Monday morning, as floodwaters were rising fast in their neighborhood in northeast Houston, three brothers and two friends set off in a small boat to rescue anyone they could find. In two trips, they brought two families — seven people in total — to safety, then went out a third time. “Everybody told them to stay, that they had already done their part,” said Stepheny Jacquez, 25, a family member. “But they said, ‘No, we have to go back, there’s a lot of people in danger.’” On their third trip out, around 3 p.m. Monday, they lost control of their boat in strong currents and drifted toward downed power lines throwing off sparks. “They all jumped in the water and got electrocuted, and the current took them,” Jacquez said. Now two of the men are dead, two are missing and one is in the hospital with electrical burns, Jacquez said. “They’re heroes; they were just trying to help people,” Jacquez said.[/quote]
Christ... If any men deserve to be past the pearly gates, it's these good ol' boys.
Small boats in large waters are not a good idea. Let the professionals do their part.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52632847]Small boats in large waters are not a good idea. Let the professionals do their part.[/QUOTE] The professionals might not get their in time and you can't save everyone if your willing to risk your ass why not at the same time though, I'll be fair, the other side of this is by not being professional you could end up bringing unneeded risk to others. But its like... they're already [I]in[/I] risk
[QUOTE=J!NX;52632854]The professionals might not get their in time and you can't save everyone if your willing to risk your ass why not at the same time though, I'll be fair, the other side of this is by not being professional you could end up bringing unneeded risk to others. But its like... they're already [I]in[/I] risk[/QUOTE] People being at risk doesn't really justify further increasing that risk. What if they had a 3rd family in the boat at the time they got caught by the current? People wanting to save other people is admirable but more would be rescuers die than actual people needing rescuing. If I learned anything from tech rescue training it's that you always leave the rescuing to the people with the training and the equipment unless absolutely necessary.
[QUOTE=Anderan;52632861]People being at risk doesn't really justify further increasing that risk. What if they had a 3rd family in the boat at the time they got caught by the current? People wanting to save other people is admirable but more would be rescuers die than actual people needing rescuing. If I learned anything from tech rescue training it's that you always leave the rescuing to the people with the training and the equipment unless absolutely necessary.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_Navy[/url] They do a damn good job, and they are all just everyday people who volunteer to do this stuff.
Don't really understand why electricity would still be supplied to a city being flooded, doesn't seem like a good time to use electrical equipment whatsoever not to mention the relevant issue of long range electrocution.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52632995][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_Navy[/url] They do a damn good job, and they are all just everyday people who volunteer to do this stuff.[/QUOTE] There are many instances of civilians successfully rescuing someone in danger, but that doesn't change the fact that there are extreme dangers in attempting to do so that could have been avoided if left to the professionals. [URL="https://psmag.com/social-justice/drowning-in-good-intentions-47837"]In Australia between 1992 and 2007 82% of people attempting to rescue a drowning victim drowned themselves[/URL], [URL="https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=PREAMBLES&p_id=839"]60% of confined space casualties are would be rescuers[/URL]. Again, it's admirable that people want to go out and save people, but please don't encourage it.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52633041]Don't really understand why electricity would still be supplied to a city being flooded, doesn't seem like a good time to use electrical equipment whatsoever not to mention the relevant issue of long range electrocution.[/QUOTE] Could be an electrocution risk, but at the same time there might be people trapped relying on electricity to get distress calls out etc.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52633041]Don't really understand why electricity would still be supplied to a city being flooded, doesn't seem like a good time to use electrical equipment whatsoever not to mention the relevant issue of long range electrocution.[/QUOTE] It's not easy to just "turn off the power" to an entire city, even when it's not half underwater. It's called a grid system for a reason; there are multiple feeds to multiple substations all over the city and odds are most of them are inaccessible right now. Plus there are plenty of places not currently flooded that need electricity badly, like hospitals, police stations, etc.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.