Woman stuck to toilet after 2 years of sitting? Color me skeptical

OK, since it seems every damn news source has covered this today, I have to step in and say I’m just a bit skeptical of what’s going on here. There’s got to be something to this story that we’re not hearing yet. The claim is, a woman sat on a toilet in her boyfriend’s house for 2 years before he finally called police, saying only that there was something wrong with his girlfriend.

Authorities are considering charges in the bizarre case of a woman who stayed in her boyfriend’s bathroom for two years, spending most of her time on the toilet — so that her body was stuck to the seat by the time the man finally called police.

If it were Mississippi or Arkansas, it would probably be a teeny bit more believable than in Kansas. Maybe there isn’t anything more to the story than what’s in the AP story, but it’s just so hard to believe that there’s not something in the story that we’re not being told yet. In particular, it’s hard to imagine this without there being some information missing in the how-did-this-happen details:

It appeared the 35-year-old Ness City woman’s skin had grown around the seat, said Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple. The woman initially refused emergency medical services but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.

“We pried the toilet seat off with a pry bar and the seat went with her to the hospital,” Whipple said. “The hospital removed it.”

Sat so long her skin grew onto/around the seat? Day-um.

“She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body,” Whipple said. “It is hard to imagine. … I still have a hard time imagining it myself.”

Me too, Mr. Whipple. Me too. The boyfriend says, basically, that the whole situation just sorta, you know, snuck up on him.

McFarren told the AP that he wasn’t to blame, and that it was solely Babcock’s choice to remain in the bathroom.

“She is an adult; she made her own decision. It was my fault I should have gotten help for her sooner; I admit that. But after a while, you kind of get used to it,” McFarren said.

Although authorities said they think Babcock was in the bathroom for two years, McFarren said he wasn’t certain how long she stayed there. He said she had a phobia about leaving the room because of childhood beatings.

She did it. She’s kinda kooky. I don’t know how long it’s been. Oh, and it ain’t really my fault.

Whatever. We’ll see if more comes out about just how this happened. Dude is just not telling us something that went on, or the sheriff is leaving out details while an investigation takes place.

[tags]WTF, Seriously?, O RLY?, toilet attachment, Kansas, Really – WTF?!?, Gross[/tags]

Roof strength on SUVs cause for safety concern?

Let me say first that the model they use in the story is the same SUV I currently drive, but mine is white and possibly a little older.  That said, here’s the story – the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has issued a report on roof strength of SUVs, and they find the results not the least bit comforting.  The IIHS believes improved roof strength will reduce injuries and fatalities in rollover crashes and has results of their tests available for concerned consumers looking to still buy a gas guzzler but wanting to remain as safe as possible.

By testing the roofs of 11 sport utility vehicles, then looking at the deaths and injury rates in accidents, the institute found that the stronger the roof was, the less likelihood of injury or death.

. . .

Rollovers account for about one-quarter of those who die in car crashes, but SUVs that are higher off the ground than other vehicles are particularly prone to rollovers. The study contends that stronger roofs, like the one on the 2000 Nissan Xterra, could cut injury risk by a third in single-vehicle SUV rollover crashes.

Automakers contend that roof strength improvements will not do anything to safety numbers, but the IIHS disagrees.  I can conceive that the automakers are right – overall safety design is probably more important than roof strength and the cars with the better safety ratings may achieve that by overall design and not just roof strength.  However, it’s hard for me to imagine that the roof strength could be improved without improving the safety overall design just because I know any change to the design has to be checked for consistency with all other design considerations.

This isn’t to indicate any of these vehicles fail to meet federally mandated safety requirements.  It’s that the IIHS believes the mandates are not strict enough.

The current standard requires vehicles to withstand 1½ times the weight of the vehicle before crushing five inches. The administration would like to require passenger vehicles to withstand 2½ times its weight instead. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says that’s still not good enough, and argues a passenger vehicle should be able to withstand three times its weight when it rolls over.

As an owner of the SUV that received the lowest roof strength rating, I’m all for improving it.  But as with anything in design, I wonder what will the price be for any improvements?  These businesses have to factor in how much it will increase manufacturing costs for improve safety, how much of that can be passed on to consumers, and where will the dollars go from the edge-case buyers who would buy at the current price but not at any higher price.  It sucks for those only concerned with safety, and sure some people will throw up the “What cost human life?” question, but we all have finite resources, and these changes have to be considered.

So how much would you pay for more safety?  If it cost $100 for a roof with twice the collapse strength you currently have, would you?  What if it cost $1000 more?  How about an increase that cost $500 and cut fuel efficiency 5%?  Where does the trade-off become too much for you?

[tags]SUV, IIHS, Safety, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety[/tags]

Eye Candy voting

I haven’t posted a good eye candy picture in a while, so I feel a need to rectify that. However, I can’t quite decide which subject should make my next Eye Candy focus. I’ve just started watching the new Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles show, so I have Summer Glau on my mind (along with many admittedly unclean thoughts). But I also have been watching the revival of American Gladiators with my kids lately, and have to admit a bit of a crush on, ummmm, Crush (shown below out of gladiator gear).

{democracy:7}

Please let me know what you want to see more of next.

[tags]Eye Candy, Mmmmm, Summer Glau, Gina Carano, Crush, American Gladiators, Terminator, Sarah Chronicles, Come with me if you want to live[/tags]

The other 28 minutes

Normally, I prefer to limit my advertisement space on the site to ads that earn a little money for me.  However, I couldn’t pass up the punch line on this one.

My question, after watching this, is how did that guy build up 120 seconds of stamina?  I’m done after about 15, maybe 20.  If you include the begging that counts as foreplay, I’m still only good for 45 to 60 seconds. . .

[tags]Domino’s, Pizza, 2 minutes, The other 28[/tags]