3 ms·

I actually looked that case up at some point. She was wearing some kind of pants of synthetic material which melted into her lap. She was quite elderly, so she

by Mz 9y ago

I actually looked that case up at some point. She was wearing some kind of pants of synthetic material which melted into her lap. She was quite elderly, so she moved slowly anyway, and was in a public space. The only way she could have avoided this becoming a serious burn would have been to promptly leap up and whip her pants off right then and there for all the world to see. Now, I have done something like that in front of medical personnel in an ER, pulling my pants off when I realized they were the source of the exposure that was causing my throat to close up. Even I would probably hesitate to do so in the middle of a McDonald's knowing that I would likely be charged with something for suddenly getting naked in public. If the maneuver was successful in protecting against burns, good luck convincing people that you had to get naked to prevent being maimed. This woman WAS maimed and her case still gets dismissed in internet comments left and right, like yours.

the8472 9y ago
> like yours I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.
- Mz 9y ago
  Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)." That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
  - the8472 9y ago
    > That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS) This is what I think I did. > but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured) Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual. Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
    - Mz 9y ago
      What I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case." You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me. And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk. Now you're being silly. If you checked that link I posted below then you'd see that there is hardly any difference in damage done with 100 versus 88 degree Celsius water at the same exposure times. Both are pretty much instantaneous and will give you 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
  - the8472 9y ago
    I'm talking about the flash boiling of superheated (>100°C) water as "that particular risk".
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Flashboiling or not doesn't in the end matter. You'll get burned, badly, the difference is maybe where you'll get burned. I'm not even sure if I would not prefer being hit with liquid that has flashed to steam rather than by the actual liquid but I don't think I'm going to try to find out. Once was more than plenty for me.
      - the8472 9y ago
        > You'll get burned, badly That is conditional on spilling. With superheated water that's not necessary. That's my point. Superheated water provides a far worse risk profile since it can flash boil on you and delid the container even if you handled the container properly. So equating 82–88°C coffee to PWR water is vastly overstating the risk.

by Mz 9y ago

the8472 9y ago

> like yours I was dismissing the claim that this was "PWR core" hot water, which would be > 100°C. Selling superheated liquids would indeed be grossly negligent because they can flash-boil just by handling them. Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk.

Mz 9y ago
Perhaps you think you are merely being pedantic, but the overall effect is to be dismissive of the case referenced. If that is not your intent, then you are framing your remarks here rather poorly. It would be fine to say something like "That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS), but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured)." That is not what you are doing. Given context, the effect of your comments comes across as dismissive of the case.
- the8472 9y ago
  > That sounds hyperbolic because (FACTS) This is what I think I did. > but (affirm that the lady was in fact seriously injured) Something feels wrong about this supposed requirement. I just stated facts. I don't want to insert disclaimers, signalling, agreement or something like that on the surrounding issue. It strikes me as a crazy social ritual. Note that I have nowhere made a statement on the case in general.
  - Mz 9y ago
    What I am trying to suggest here is that people are arguing with you because of the context of your remarks implying that "the woman was not really injured, it was a made-up BS case." You aren't required to do anything in particular. But telling me I am wrong to explain to you how you are coming across is... all kinds of tunnel vision, at best. This is how it looks to me as a minimum. You don't have to care how it looks to me, but you can't tell me I am wrong in my assessment of how it appears to me. And I think I am done with this apparently completely pointless discussion with you.
jacquesm 9y ago
> Merely hot water on the other hand does not pose that particular risk. Now you're being silly. If you checked that link I posted below then you'd see that there is hardly any difference in damage done with 100 versus 88 degree Celsius water at the same exposure times. Both are pretty much instantaneous and will give you 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds.
- the8472 9y ago
  I'm talking about the flash boiling of superheated (>100°C) water as "that particular risk".
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Flashboiling or not doesn't in the end matter. You'll get burned, badly, the difference is maybe where you'll get burned. I'm not even sure if I would not prefer being hit with liquid that has flashed to steam rather than by the actual liquid but I don't think I'm going to try to find out. Once was more than plenty for me.
    - the8472 9y ago
      > You'll get burned, badly That is conditional on spilling. With superheated water that's not necessary. That's my point. Superheated water provides a far worse risk profile since it can flash boil on you and delid the container even if you handled the container properly. So equating 82–88°C coffee to PWR water is vastly overstating the risk.