May 15, 2001
8:26 AM Subscribe
This debunks a few myths about PFDs.
This is the worst post I've seen on Metafilter. You suck.
posted by tweek! at 10:31 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by tweek! at 10:31 AM on May 15, 2001
the best way to prevent the transmission of PFDs is to abstain from se-
wait, what?
posted by jcterminal at 10:40 AM on May 15, 2001
wait, what?
posted by jcterminal at 10:40 AM on May 15, 2001
This is lamer than the day running lights post?
posted by ParisParamus at 10:45 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 10:45 AM on May 15, 2001
this also debunks the rumor of skilled designers working for the Coast Guard. no Netscape 4.7.
posted by donkeysuck at 10:53 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by donkeysuck at 10:53 AM on May 15, 2001
Guys, now you too can have personal flotation devices.
posted by shinybeast at 11:34 AM on May 15, 2001
posted by shinybeast at 11:34 AM on May 15, 2001
This thread is way lamer than the one about day running lights. That guy was obsessive. This is just the USCG being informational.
However, I'd like to personally outfit Pat McGroin with a PDF. This nice lead one, right here. Keeps you from being bandied about by ocean currents, you know.
posted by anapestic at 12:35 PM on May 15, 2001
However, I'd like to personally outfit Pat McGroin with a PDF. This nice lead one, right here. Keeps you from being bandied about by ocean currents, you know.
posted by anapestic at 12:35 PM on May 15, 2001
Gosh, as a sailor and whitewater rafter, I found this link interesting and informative. Chacun a son gout...
posted by nicwolff at 1:10 PM on May 15, 2001
posted by nicwolff at 1:10 PM on May 15, 2001
I disagree. I think that Personal Flotation Devices have been shunned and swept into the background for too long... I have seen the chagrin of these innocent devices, which only want to help, as they are thrown over for the In-Flight magazine only too often... ^_^
posted by atfrost at 2:11 PM on May 15, 2001
posted by atfrost at 2:11 PM on May 15, 2001
tweek! et al -- ha ha, made you look.
To the point,
It is unlikely that any different Type of PFD would have prevented most of the drownings where a PFD was used.
That's what I call debunking myths.
posted by dfowler at 3:58 PM on May 15, 2001
To the point,
It is unlikely that any different Type of PFD would have prevented most of the drownings where a PFD was used.
That's what I call debunking myths.
posted by dfowler at 3:58 PM on May 15, 2001
Just remember everyone, the article is dead wrong. PFDs do not save your life when you are knocked out. PFDs are not designed to float you on your back. Only lifejackets do that, and those have had the same design for more than 50 years. Pretty basic knowledge for anyone who works on the water, I wonder who wrote that page?
posted by tiamat at 10:21 PM on May 15, 2001
posted by tiamat at 10:21 PM on May 15, 2001
Just remember everyone,
in the same document, the Coast Guard identifies Type I PFDs as "offshore lifejackets," not to be confused with "near-shore buoyant vests" (Type II) or "flotation aids" (Type III). All PFDs classed by the USCG as "Type I" will turn most unconscious wearers face up.
As far as the "lifejacket vs. PFD" point, it's addressed (by the Coast Guard, who work on the water -- shit, they tell us all how to work on the water):
It is unlikely that any different Type of PFD would have prevented most of the drownings where a PFD was used. Consider this regarding PFD performance:
(1) About 450 people drowned in 1996, apparently because they didn’t have a PFD that they were willing to wear.
(2) About 55 people died in accidents where PFDs were used, but only in about 5 to 10 of those cases is there any indication that a higher performing PFD might have prevented the drowning. In the other 45 to 50 cases, other contributing factors would have overcome the benefits of any PFD. The factors include: being trapped in an overturned boat, being held under a boulder or log by the strong currents of white water, removing the PFD for some reason (like swimming to shore), becoming hypothermic due to the duration of exposure in cold water, suffering other injuries that led to drowning, etc.
That's what I meant when I said "debunking myths." They've got the numbers; they're right. Read the article before you get snarky.
posted by dfowler at 6:29 AM on May 16, 2001
in the same document, the Coast Guard identifies Type I PFDs as "offshore lifejackets," not to be confused with "near-shore buoyant vests" (Type II) or "flotation aids" (Type III). All PFDs classed by the USCG as "Type I" will turn most unconscious wearers face up.
As far as the "lifejacket vs. PFD" point, it's addressed (by the Coast Guard, who work on the water -- shit, they tell us all how to work on the water):
It is unlikely that any different Type of PFD would have prevented most of the drownings where a PFD was used. Consider this regarding PFD performance:
(1) About 450 people drowned in 1996, apparently because they didn’t have a PFD that they were willing to wear.
(2) About 55 people died in accidents where PFDs were used, but only in about 5 to 10 of those cases is there any indication that a higher performing PFD might have prevented the drowning. In the other 45 to 50 cases, other contributing factors would have overcome the benefits of any PFD. The factors include: being trapped in an overturned boat, being held under a boulder or log by the strong currents of white water, removing the PFD for some reason (like swimming to shore), becoming hypothermic due to the duration of exposure in cold water, suffering other injuries that led to drowning, etc.
That's what I meant when I said "debunking myths." They've got the numbers; they're right. Read the article before you get snarky.
posted by dfowler at 6:29 AM on May 16, 2001
« Older Don't make phone calls in Vegas. The Mob is... | Do you really need a car all the time? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by frykitty at 9:31 AM on May 15, 2001