We went to the pool for some water rescue training last night...

Here's what I saw:

http://19k.blogspot.com/2007/08/no-breath-holding.html


Words fail me.

"...Words fail me..."

Me too...

My only guess is that the people who run those pools want to pack as many people in as possible. Those who actually swim or dive would interfere with that I reckon.

Tim

But if you stop breathing, there are some folks out there who may just forget how to start breathing again.

The pool owners obvisously don't want any potential future lawsuits.

Yeah, namely the people who came up with the idea of no breathing underwater.




Yes. With pools and swimming (and swimming underwater) being a relatively new thing (people not being used to these things) I can see where they might have reason to worry. Better to not allow breathing underwater and let's wait and see how this new swimming pool water/human mixture thing works out.

Seriously... if law suits were an issue, imagine the crackpot that would sue because their child, while not prohibited from swimming underwater, was prohibited from breathing underwater, and thus drowned.

It is a safety issue.

When people submerge and hold their breath for a period of time, it can be difficult for the Life Guards to determine whether someone is in trouble or simply holding their breath. In larger pools or crowed pools, when someone is submerged and not moving for 30 seconds to a minute or more, the Life Guard must watch the individual closely to determine if the individual is really in trouble, thus potentially diverting their attention from a true emergency.

Pete

And this is a problem? Can we cite evidence that this is a rampant problem or is it another case of "it happened once or twice, so it's an "epidemic" that Must Be Stopped At All Costs?

It reminds me of the cell phone ban at gas stations. There's NEVER been a case where a cell phone triggered a gasoline explosion accidentally. NEVER. There's NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support any ban on cell phones at gas stations.

Ahhh good observation Pete. But it's not truly a "safety" issue is it? I think it's more of an employer/labor relations issue: the Lifeguard Union must be saying "Look. Our lifeguards are suffering from eye strain and mental stress. Do you realize they actually have to watch people underwater to determine whether or not they're ok? We need to cut that out...that underwater thing..."

I see the future for your pool Martin. In ten years, those signs will be changed to "NO SWIMMING"

Uhmmm.....I'm not so sure about that... I think I read somewhere that there was this guy pumping gas....he was just standing there, smoking a cigarette, when his cell phone rang. Isn;t that the one where the pump caught fire and blew up?

hehehe

As the sign says strictly 'No Breath Holding' beside the pool and if someone drowns in the pool, the pool owners have a legal get out. As someone can only drown in the pool by forgetting to breath either consciously or unconsciously and the sign says strictly 'No breath holding' then I would suspect that legally the owners could not be prosecuted for anyone drowning in that pool.
If the sign said ‘No Conscious Breath Holding’, then the owners could be prosecuted for an unconscious breath holding incident. i.e. an unconscious drowning incident.

On the other hand, if someone were to scrupulously observe the posted prohibition, and swim underwater while inhaling and exhaling as usual, their might be some interesting litigation as a result of that as well.

As this would quickly lead to unconscious breath holding and as the sign says 'No Breath Holding', either consciously or unconsciously, its still a get out of court free card. Also if you notice the symbol under the 'No Breath Holding' text, it clearly shows a no under water swimming sign or would that be no drowning allowed in the pool sign.

Hi Martin,

Sorry, I cannot help with specific examples, but unfortunately pool drownings occur every summer, even where Life Guards are on duty.

Breath holding can often be preceded by hyperventilation in an attempt to “blow off” excess CO2, this coupled with breath holding can lead the individual to “pass out” and potentially drown. “Back in the day” (it may still occur) kids would hyperventilate and then have a “friend” tightly hold them around the chest, this would cause the individual to temporarily “pass out” mimicking a short high.

While some have pointed out this may be a legal/liability issue/attempt to exonerate the pool owners/operators from civil and/or criminal prosecution, the sign posting in no way alleviates their obligation to both prevent drownings and perform rescues. The Life Guards still have a duty to perform. Whether one considers this a “nanny” approach or a legitimate approach to reduce drownings is up to debate, but apparently this pool’s owners/operators felt it was necessary.

It is not clear to me, if this sign was only at the slide’s exit point into the water or everywhere around the pool. If it was just around the slide’s exit point into the water, it might be there to prevent someone from remaining underwater at this location where the next user could end up landing on top of the submerged individual.

Keep in mind that many pools utilize Life Guards that are 15-16 year old kids and while trained and certified, they may have never faced a life-threatening situation. Most, I am sure perform admirably and have saved many a life, but I suspect the pool’s owners/operators felt adding this restriction would provide an extra margin of safety.

Pete

When a kid my brother - being so skinny - could hold his breath and "walk on the bottom" of the deep area. He would regularly get scoldings from the lifeguards for doing that since he was down for so long.

It isn't anything new.

Posting the sign will not protect them from a lawsuit.

However, eliminating or attempting to control potentially dangerous behaviors/actions will have direct correlation on the number of accidents that do or do not occur and most likely their insurance premiums.

Homeowners associations, local or state governments, own many of the puplic use pools. I would think it is the responsibility of the owners/operators to implement rules and procedures to not only protect the patrons, but also keep the costs of operating the pool within reason. It is no different then asking patrons not to run on the pool deck, which can be slippery, thus attempting to reduce falls.


Pete

On the face of it, it looks stupid. But it's not.

I was 13 when I was in a motel pool in Las Vegas. There was a kid who was "practicing holding his breath under water". It was his sister who finally realized that he had been down too long, and jumped in to pull him to the surface. She and I pulled him to the edge of the pool. No one there knew CPR. His parents were in some casino. I don't know if he lived or died.

From article "Water Hazards: Underwater Breath-Holding Can Be Fatal" http://info.alaska.edu/risksafety/download/UE%20Publication/SD2002I3.doc :

"... prolonged underwater breath-holding is a very dangerous practice. It can lead to underwater blackout (also called shallow water blackout), inhalation of water, cardiac arrest, brain damage, and death. The danger stems from an insufficient amount of carbon dioxide to activate the body’s usual warning system.

"The impulse to breathe is triggered by the buildup of carbon dioxide in the blood, not by a lack of oxygen. If the level of carbon dioxide is not high enough, because of hyperventilation or some other reason, a swimmer or diver won’t get the message that it’s time to take a breath.

"Some swimmers and divers hyperventilate--take rapid and deep breaths—before going underwater in the mistaken belief that doing so will help them increase their lung capacity. Instead hyperventilation depletes their lungs of the carbon dioxide they need to tell them when to take another breath. Deep breathing as an underwater endurance step actually increases the risk of drowning.

"The U.S. Navy has issued several warnings about the risks of hyperventilating before going underwater. In one, following the drowning death of a chief petty officer in 1998, the service wrote, 'Hyperventilation is so dangerous that the U.S. Navy Diving Manual prohibits it and professional aquatics organizations caution against it.'

"... Can a lifeguard adequately supervise someone who is practicing extended underwater breath-holding? Submersion for even a half minute can lead to drowning, and longer than five minutes generally causes death. Monitoring would require continuous supervision, and monitoring underwater activities in a murky lake or ocean water is even more impractical. If a swimmer engaging in some risky activity, such as endurance breath-holding, asks a lifeguard to keep a special watch over him or her, the guard’s best response is to decline. The guard owes attention equally to all swimmers and should not agree to special monitoring of someone engaged in such a risky activity. Consider prohibiting swimmers from practicing endurance breath-holding in your facility. "

There's also an article, "Hypoxia, Carbon Monoxide Poisoning and Drowning" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A817850

Sue

Hi Susan,

Thanks for doing the homework.

Pete

That's interesting info.

This is great example of how a complex problem is often reduced to a really stupid warning sign.

"No EXTENDED breath holding" would have made a little more sense.

the dw chose last night's dvd - "lovely and amazing." one of the lead characters, a 9 year-old female, was doing just this - breath holding - several times during the movie... she thought it was funny.. the adults didn't - her friends were wide-eyed..

and then i see this post..

my $0.02 = how many floaters does a lifeguard have to keep an eye on before one really stops moving and the lifeguard doesn't notice they stopped moving - because there are several doing the same, along with the myriad other distractions found around a public pool?

I think this sign should go right next to that one.

Liability is an omnipresent force.

~Nemo

And just for good measure…