ROPE - I have not heard of this snorkeling problem

[Outbound]

When I first saw the article about the gentleman's dying, and before more details came out, I thought of “dry drowning".
I had not heard of ROPE. Could someone please clarify, or direct me to a source, so I can learn what the difference is.
Thanks in advance.

Dry drowning is caused by the partially aspiration of water, which causes laryngospasm. Edema is when fluid from within the bosy fills the lungs.

 

[Soloist]

Apparently I struck a nerve suggesting the term "experienced snorkeler" was somewhat dubious. Unfortunately the dancing drunks jumping off party boats in Cabo immediately comes to mind whenever the word snorkeler enters the conversation. With all seriousness, please accept my apologies for not differentiating.

 

[OMyMyOHellYes]

Nevermind.

Sometimes I write sh!t and then retink it once I read it in a broader context.

 

[kinoons]

Sorry, but people don't file a lawsuit "every time" there is an accidental death--our courts would be hopelessly clogged with thousands more lawsuits if that were the case. The reason it may seem that way is simply because accidental deaths generally become newsworthy only when a lawsuit is filed. (Note also there were almost 200 snorkeling deaths in Hawaii over the past decade or so according to the study--this appears to be the first lawsuit filed over one--at least no others have been referenced.)

Would be interested to see the complaint filed in this suit and learn more of the facts, but certainly understand why one was filed. We would probably never have heard of this incident without the lawsuit, so it has already had a postive effect in informing me, and apparently many others here, of a risk I was not previously aware of.

Moreover, it seems Hawaii authorities might have been dragging their feet in warning about this--they commissioned a study that in 2022 recommended additional warnings, especially relating to snorkeling after air travel, but then did nothing. The study showed a MUCH greater incidence of deaths from snorkeling for non-residents (vs. residents) than any other aquatic activity (including swimming), which surely was a red flag. (Note that Egyptian authorities had already warned of using full-face snorkel masks in 2020 according to a previous scuba board thread (though we don't know if one was used in this case).) And the coroner didn't help by misleadingly describing the cause of death as "drowning."

Why is it incumbent on the state to warn you about the risks of whatever activity you decide to take in their state? How about you as the participant learn what the risks of the activity you want to participate in.

From the article - 206 deaths in 9-10 years were linked to ROPE for the whole state of HI. The study itself says there is a 10x increased risk (relative risk) but it makes no reference to the absolute risk of death when snorkeling. Given the number of snorkelers is likely in the thousands each day I’d be willing to bet the absolute risk for both groups is damn low. You’re far more likely to get killed in a car crash than die from ROPE.

Haleakala is at 10k feet. Yet you don’t see warnings about elevation posted everywhere.

How about the mountain west. Is Colorado responsible for warning every traveler about the risks of high elevations? Are we going to prevent skiers from going to elevation from sea level for several days to help prevent HAPE or HACE?

Let’s not forget the phenomena we are trying to prevent is extremely rare. You’ll ruin far more trips than lives you save.

So no, I don’t want the state being responsible for warning me about the risks of the activities I choose to undertake.


Edit - or much worse manage those risks for me.

 

[lowwall]

20 deaths a year is an absolutely enormous number for what people think of as a safe activity in an area that depends heavily on tourism. All it takes is one media outlet to promote this as a problem and then keep harping on it with every new death.

That aside, I'd be interested in seeing the number of deaths per year while snorkeling over a much longer term to see if there has been a noticeable increase since the introduction of the modern snorkel mask.

 

[kinoons]

20 deaths a year is an absolutely enormous number for what people think of as a safe activity in an area that depends heavily on tourism. All it takes is one media outlet to promote this as a problem and then keep harping on it with every new death.

That aside, I'd be interested in seeing the number of deaths per year while snorkeling over a much longer term to see if there has been a noticeable increase since the introduction of the modern snorkel mask.

An enormous number? 1.5 deaths every month roughly is enormous? For an activity that likely thousands of people partake in each day?

Hawaii DOT reported 116 traffic fatalities and 572 serious injuries in 2022 alone. Yet none of us blink an eye at driving a car in Hawaii. Yes hundreds of thousands of people drive each day, so the absolute risk of injury or death is very small.

Swimming in the open ocean has inherent risk. Especially for those who do not do so on a routine basis or are not physically active on a regular basis. Yet overall this risk is very low and is on par with many activities folks consider low risk activities.

I am saddened the man in the story lost his life. None the less this does not equate to the government being responsible nor do they need to get involved.

As noted in the article the information about the risk of snorkeling freely was available for many years. He could have searched for this info on his own and made an informed decision. It’s not the state’s job to ram this information down his throat or make that decision for him.

In 2023 46 skiers/snowboarders died in the USA. 57 in 2020-2022. 48 in 2019-2020. That works out to roughly ten a month if we have a four to five month ski season. I bet there are tens of thousands of skiers/snowboarders on the slopes each day nationwide. A WAG would put the risk of snowboarding and snorkeling roughly on par. Should there be a huge campaign about the risks of skiing and have the government dictate to us who can ski and when?

 

[SlugLife]

So no, I don’t want the state being responsible for warning me about the risks of the activities I chose to undertake.

The only direction that ever goes, is the activity becomes outlawed or heavily restricted, because that's all governments know how to do.

None the less this does not equate to the government being responsible nor do they need to get involved.

She's asserting the government should have already warned him/her before this incident happened. That requires it to be reasonably foreseeable, that there is a practical way to warn people, and that the responsibility for that warning somehow lies on the state (and not someone else).

Following her logic, if the state fails to warn you about something with 20+ deaths per year, you can sue them (tax payers) and collect a huge settlement? If she was just advocating that the state do this going forward, I might consider her effort "a cause" but instead, it just comes across as opportunistic.

He could have searched for this info on his own and made an informed decision.

Correct. Think about all the risks of scuba-diving. Even after an OW course, you're generally only aware of the absolute most common ones likely to face a rec-diver. Even then, not really. Perhaps one of the most common causes of death amongst scuba-divers is having a non-diving medical incident underwater. Entanglements I feel were inadequately covered in my OW course.

I'm no expert on snorkeling, but I wonder how far down the list of potential risks "ROPE" is.

"Before you're legally allowed to snorkel in Hawaii, you are required to sign a paper with warnings 15 pages long, describing all known dangers associated with snorkeling. And of course pay for $100 annual fee for a snorkeling license."

 

[MarkA]

20 deaths a year is an absolutely enormous number for what people think of as a safe activity in an area that depends heavily on tourism. All it takes is one media outlet to promote this as a problem and then keep harping on it with every new death.

That aside, I'd be interested in seeing the number of deaths per year while snorkeling over a much longer term to see if there has been a noticeable increase since the introduction of the modern snorkel mask.

Deleted. Info already given

 

[Trilobite]

The only direction that ever goes, is the activity becomes outlawed or heavily restricted, because that's all governments know how to do.

She's asserting the government should have already warned him/her before this incident happened. That requires it to be reasonably foreseeable, that there is a practical way to warn people, and that the responsibility for that warning somehow lies on the state (and not someone else).

We don't have the complaint, so don't know the legal theory of the case, all the relevant facts, or even what relief is requested. So what you are saying is pure speculation. In any event, the article quoted her as saying there was nothing about the risk on any website at the time this happened (I don't know if that's true or not). This despite the fact that Hawaii had commissioned a study that already recommended warnings be disseminated. So there is likely no claim that the government in general has a duty to warn of such risks, but that they were negligent in not taking any steps to warn of the risk after their own study recommended warnings.

And yes, governments can warn of risks without outlawing activities. E.g. the U.S. State Department warns of dangerous areas to travel to on its website all the time, but they don't prevent you from traveling there.

 

[SlugLife]

In any event, the article quoted her as saying there was nothing about the risk on any website at the time this happened (I don't know if that's true or not).

If her real goal is to spread awareness, there are other ways of doing that.

what you are saying is pure speculation

Not pure speculation. However, I have reasons for saying everything I said, even if it's not 100% proven fact. Including "IMO, this should be an immediate case dismissed, and looks like someone trying to turn a tragedy into a money-grab."

So there is likely no claim that the government in general has a duty to warn of such risks, but that they were negligent in not taking any steps to warn of the risk after their own study recommended warnings

I'm not supposed to speculate, but you have no problem speculating?

The whole point of bringing up negligence isn't to suggest they should do something going forward, but rather to suggest they should have done something different in the past, which is an important part of most civil claims.