Reply to What happened to this California family?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "What happened to this California family?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think there's plenty of rationale to explain why heatstroke was likely *a* cause of death. There appear to be few reasons why it wasn't heatstroke, and I think these can be argued away
[b]Why heatstroke:[/b]
1. [i][u]It was damn hot[/u][/i]. Very damn hot. I don't think there's any debate: the conditions were scorching and intense for any human, esp a baby (& dog)
2. The couple was [i][u]overburdened[/u][/i]. They had their child on their backs and a dog that may (for several reasons, paws/fur/etc) have needed to be carried at some point.
3. Dozens of factors suggest they could have been [i][u]on the trail for much longer than they intended[/u][/i], and therefore spent more time in the heat of the day and in unshaded conditions.  (Factors include: dog/baby slowing them down, getting sidetracked by checking out river/mines, got their choice of trail mixed up, etc.)
4. The disorienting nature of heatstroke which means [i][u]we don't need to expect the couple to have behaved 100% rationally[/u][/i] as they got ill (e.g. leaving baby w/dad, mom going ahead).

[b]Arguments against heatstroke?[/b]
A. [u][i]Three of them found at the same place[/i][/u][ --does that suggest it unlikely that all succumbed in one place/time? --NO, imho. Once the mom went on ahead, the baby wasn't going anywhere on her own, no matter whether she lived longer than her father or not. The dog at the dad's side can be explained either by dogs' habit of tending to their owners during owners' distress, or this dog failing earlier along the hike, and the dad carried him and kept him alongside.
B. [u][i]Water in their camelbacks[/i][/u]--But water doesn't prevent heatstroke, does it?...keeping hydrated is essential in the heat, but they could have gotten overheated and not been able to cool down simply with water. Plus, maybe they were trying to conserve the water. 
C. The [u][I]authorities not simply saying "it was heatstroke"[/u][/i]--I think the authorities could be wondering whether they tried to cool off in the river ([u]maybe they had signs of being in the river?[/u] like mud on clothes) and want to make sure it wasn't an ADDITIONAL factor that EXACERBATED their difficulties withstanding the conditions (e.g., if they swam in the river, the dog drank water and got ill). Because if there was any toxic algae, the authorities would want to know, and be sure, so they can post warnings accordingly. 
D. They were [i][u]experienced hikers[/u][/i]--Indeed, they were; but I don't think that past experience makes their bodies any more tolerant of intense heat for a prolonged time. At most, it argues that they should've been able to know how to hike most safely in the heat. But reasons #2 and #3 above suggest all the ways that their preparation or judgement could have been thrown off, to their misfortune.

These 4 are the reasons people aren't ready to accept heatstroke as the simple explanation, it seems...(Along with from people getting fascinated by unusual suggestions without evidence , like mine fumes or murder.) 
Have I missed any?[/quote]

It could be something else, but I think that this is a likely theory. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics