Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
TFCSM  
#1 Posted : 09 October 2012 08:56:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TFCSM

Feel for the poor girl, but this is just incredible - someone actually decided that it was OK to serve drinks in this way. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/19866191 Unbelievable.
Andrew W Walker  
#2 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:07:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Andrew W Walker

I saw that on the news last night. Horrific. Poor girl. And it does beggar belief what people will do. Andy
walker  
#3 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:12:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Safety is just common sense Businesses should not be hampered by red tape Particularly a low risk business like a bar
walker  
#4 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:14:11(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Personally I want to see an attempted manslaughter charge resulting from this.
malcarleton  
#5 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:23:07(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
malcarleton

I agree with TFCSM and Motorhead, I've worked with liquid nitrogen and liquid oxygen in the past and always treated the stuff with respect it deserves. The fact that a Barman can pour a dangerous substance like liquid nitrogen in to a drink for consumption by a teenager who is probably already under the influence of alcohol seems a bit outragous to me. My sympathies go to the girl and her family but this incident should never have happened.
allanwood  
#6 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:23:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
allanwood

I wonder if someone from the government would like to comment on this incident with regards to: Business should not be hampered by red tape; Particularly in low risk environments like a bar (as walker has already commented). Another question if safety is just common sense - how come there are so many accidents/incidents?
chris.packham  
#7 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:31:12(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris.packham

Safety may be common sense, but: Common sense only works if it is based on knowledge, not myths and miscconceptions Common sense only works if it is applied In this case I suspect neither was applicable This is why we have legislation and regulations! Chris
teh_boy  
#8 Posted : 09 October 2012 09:46:08(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

http://www.dailymail.co....-Carvery-restaurant.html and bars even sell you poisons if you ask.... In fact it's encouraged! I am now thinking taking loads of dry ice out to the pub might have looked cool - but maybe wasn't the best of ideas - I might also reconsider some of the Heston recipes I was going to try....
Graham Bullough  
#9 Posted : 09 October 2012 10:03:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

I'd never heard of liquid nitrogen being used to provide a visual sensation with cocktail drinks until I saw the initial TV news report about the horrendous outcome in Lancaster. I also admit to shouting at the TV that such use was downright stupid (my actual wording was somewhat stronger and not repeatable on this forum). My missus, a scientist, was also scathing when she saw the report. A decade ago I learned from a young relative that buying drinks with fine gold filings added to them was an established, trendy and presumably expensive thing to do. Though the gold filings in drinks reportedly pose no health risk to drinkers, such use seemed to be extravagant and a waste of gold. Any suggestions as to what might be the next sensational, expensive, life-damaging fad after liquid nitrogen in the drinks industry?!!! :-(
teh_boy  
#10 Posted : 09 October 2012 10:14:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

Instilling vodka? (I have heard of worse from a student but totally unrepeatable on a forum - one of the few times ever that I have been speechless!!) Entonox? Vapourised Ethanol? Dry Ice? Oh no wait - they've all be done! :( Sad times - now I have nothing against these trends and as a scientist have experimented too, however does the old chestnut of risk assessment apply! In theory - you are not meant to drink the liquid nitrogen - it's just used to rapidly chill the drink...
RayRapp  
#11 Posted : 09 October 2012 10:15:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
RayRapp

What's your poison...given another perspective in the light of recent events. Seriously, it's madness giving anyone a drink which could seriously harm them. I don't even like Sanbucas because once a friend knocked the glass over his girlfriend when it was still alight and melted her tights to her legs requiring a visit to the local A&E.
Barnaby again  
#12 Posted : 09 October 2012 10:36:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Barnaby again

Graham Bullough wrote:
A decade ago I learned from a young relative that buying drinks with fine gold filings added to them was an established, trendy and presumably expensive thing to do.
I think that ones been trendy since at least the 16C.
N Burrows  
#13 Posted : 09 October 2012 10:53:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
N Burrows

Totally agree with comments made by #3, #6 and #7 about relying on Common Sense as a substitute for sensible inspection and regulation. The Coalition is adamant that routine inspections of 'Low Risk' premises must stop. However two recent examples: Liquid nitrogen served in a bar? Spa bath on display in a 'wholesale public warehouse/shop) linked to Legionella? Both premises are likely to be classed as 'Low Risk' but these significant hazards would have stood out like a sore thumb if an inspection had taken place. Two thoughts: How will 'Low risk' be defined and by whom? Isn't prevention (by inspection) better than prosecution (following incident)?
Jeff Watt  
#14 Posted : 09 October 2012 11:15:40(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jeff Watt

http://chemistry.about.c...With-Liquid-Nitrogen.htm See point 7 re how to use liquid nitrogen to make a drink "cool". I have seen it on youtube before, folks drinking Liquid N2 from a flask.....but I have also seen Penn and Teller shoot each other and catch the bullets in their respective mouths...I think they may both be tricks. Meanwhile in real life..... LN2 is mixed with Guinness to make Canned Draught Guinness that’s what makes the widget work and give it a creamy head when opened and poured. So in industry we mix LN2 with drinks but its a matter of competence with regards to how much, timing, when and under what conditions. Obviously the Liquid N2 is just gaseous N2 by the time you come to drink it and about 4 degrees centigrade. Still hard to believe. I hope Ms Scanlon makes as full a recovery as possible. Jeff
Clairel  
#15 Posted : 09 October 2012 11:25:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

Not sure that bringing up the whole Coalition Gov't removing the inspection of low risk premises is necessary. Not all bars would be inspected and unless you asked, "are you putting liquid nitrogen in your drinks" then then it would not have been picked up. Poor kid. What a terrible thing to have to live with. Hope they throw the book at the bar involved.
Irwin43241  
#16 Posted : 09 October 2012 11:31:45(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

walker wrote:
Safety is just common sense Businesses should not be hampered by red tape Particularly a low risk business like a bar
Don't quite know where you are coming from. This was common sense was it?
N Burrows  
#17 Posted : 09 October 2012 11:36:59(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
N Burrows

I disagree with Clairel in #15. I think the potential impact of Coalition policy is fundamental to those who care about workplace safety - whether we think it will have a positive (reducing burdens and freeing business) or negative (reduced compliance) effect. Most competent inspectors do not follow a script or checklist (so such specific questions are not required) but use their eyes and ears. I think a proactive inspection is quite likely to pick up the use of liquid nitrogen either by spotting storage containers or high profile advertising of such a gimmick!!
walker  
#18 Posted : 09 October 2012 11:40:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Irwin43241 wrote:
walker wrote:
Safety is just common sense Businesses should not be hampered by red tape Particularly a low risk business like a bar
Don't quite know where you are coming from. This was common sense was it?
sigh! OK Irwin Matey, I'll spell it out to you: The post was entirely ironic/sarcastic
Irwin43241  
#19 Posted : 09 October 2012 13:11:04(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Guest

walker wrote:
Irwin43241 wrote:
walker wrote:
Safety is just common sense Businesses should not be hampered by red tape Particularly a low risk business like a bar
Don't quite know where you are coming from. This was common sense was it?
sigh! OK Irwin Matey, I'll spell it out to you: The post was entirely ironic/sarcastic
Groan! Thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought for a minute you were being serious. OK Matey.
Canopener  
#20 Posted : 09 October 2012 20:21:05(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

It's certainly not my cup of tea, pun intended! Out of interest re #4, can you have or be charged with attempted manslaughter?
David.a.Taylor  
#21 Posted : 09 October 2012 20:58:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
David.a.Taylor

Canopener, You are quite right you can't be charged with attempted manslaughter. However I would think it is a breach of section 3 HSW act 1974 as a minimum then looking at risk assessments and COSHH to top up the charges. It would be a different story if this poor person dies
JohnW  
#22 Posted : 09 October 2012 21:19:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
JohnW

teh_boy wrote:
I am now thinking taking loads of dry ice out to the pub might have looked cool - but maybe wasn't the best of ideas ....
Ah teh_boy, dry ice is not liquid nitrogen, it's solid carbon dioxide. Not as cold but still dangerous.
paul.skyrme  
#23 Posted : 09 October 2012 21:36:45(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Attempted Manslaughter & Corporate Attempted Manslaughter for me TBH, END OF STORY.
paul.skyrme  
#24 Posted : 09 October 2012 21:43:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
paul.skyrme

Didn't read the earlier posts, so, did not know that there seems to be no charge for attempted manslaughter, thus AFAIAC attempted murder then, because anyone doing this must have known the consequences. NO If's No but's, if you are playing with this stuff then you MUST be COMPETENT, and this means knowing what it can do, thus, you are culpable if you muck up. It kills end of story, thus the server of the drink must be held to task as must the company management. Just because it is only a single person, does not make it any easier on their family, ask the family or Emma Shaw...
Graham Bullough  
#25 Posted : 10 October 2012 01:19:13(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

teh_boy - You conclude your response at #10 with the comment that the liquid nitrogen is "just used to rapidly chill the drink". My impression from the media reports is that the stuff is used, no doubt because of its drastic chilling effect, to generate a spectacular looking mist/fog which occurs on top of a drink and overflows its sides. Also, assuming that bar staff have some sort of system for dispensing a measured amount of liquid nitrogen into a drink, does anyone happen to know how long the transient fog effect usually lasts? I guess that each and every customer buying such a drink should be warned/reminded that nobody should drink it until the fog effect has completely ceased and the drink has also been stirred in order to ensure that all of the liquid nitrogen has dispersed from it. Even so, it's sadly foreseeable that such warnings may have little effect if the ability of buyers and/or drinkers to heed them is impaired by alcohol, etc. :-(
Invictus  
#26 Posted : 10 October 2012 07:38:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

My 18 year old had only told me the day before this broke in the news that he had, had it in Liverpool. I was trying to explain the dangers but this certainly got the message across. It's sad that quite often it takes a tragic event to highlight the dangers, even though we try and highlight them through the risk assessment process.
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#27 Posted : 10 October 2012 08:27:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

I have little sympathy - the idiot should have exercised some common sense! If the drink had LN2 in it or a chip of cardice, wait until it boils off and don't down it in one. But then again don't down in one any alcoholic drink, and then another, and another. It will lead to all sorts of serious health effects that the tax payer will have to put right, as well as a whole lot of pavement pizzas that someone must sweep up and hose down. If your cocktail has a sparkler in it, don't eat the sparkler. Some idiot might try, but that is no reason to become almost hysterical and try to ban these too, or worse seek to jail those who serve them. Do we let kids loose in the kitchen as readily as we let them out to get drunk? Parental responsibility seems to be lacking. But lets go back to the kitchen. Do we let young adults make coffee? Do we let them drink it when it might be so hot to cause tissue damage? Do we supervise them so closely that we let are there to stop them adding bleach instead of milk? It doesn't taste nice, and isn't good for health, but who wants to ban the supermarkets selling bleach just in case some idiot thinks it is OK to consume in that way? This all takes some basic - generic- instruction and life skill instilled into children, but from then on they should be instilled with sufficient ability of reasoning to make their own decisions. Perhaps the parents deserve disapprobation; I'm not quite so sure about the vendor.
TFCSM  
#28 Posted : 10 October 2012 08:50:11(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
TFCSM

Ian.Blenkharn wrote:
I have little sympathy - the idiot should have exercised some common sense!
So, an 18 year old girl out on her 18th birthday who is arguably inexperienced in the world of bars should have the common sense to know that what she is about to drink might mean having her stomach removed? This girl had every right to presume she would be safe in the surroundings that she was in. And you don't think the bar owed her a duty of care? Flabbergasted.
Norfolkboy  
#29 Posted : 10 October 2012 09:03:31(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Norfolkboy

Ian is merely stating the position and beliefs of the vast majority of the general public and the spirit of the times. If you get injured its your fault and if you try and claim compensation you are a scrooger !! The Governments removal of inspections and burdens on business - even if these will in turn lead to more injuries and god forbid deaths are very much in keeping with the views of the general public and unfortunately we are a well informed minority who have lost the public debate.
Invictus  
#30 Posted : 10 October 2012 10:06:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Invictus

Ian, why is this young person an idiot, because they are young and inexperienced. Don't we as safety people have to look after young people in the workplace because of the same reason or do we just hope they don't put their hands in equipment, use the machinary they have not been trained to use etc or do we do separate risk assessments, training etc to take into the inexperience. I think you have written what you have to get a rise out of people, but as said in other postings your opinion is yours and not that of everyone
safetyamateur  
#31 Posted : 10 October 2012 10:15:01(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
safetyamateur

Firstly, I think Ian's one-liner was misjudged and he didn't really mean that. I hope he come's back to confirm my opinion. Secondly, I can't see how he was expressing the views of the vast majority. I reckon the majority are, like us, scratching their heads thinking "what the......!" If this happened at a house party, although just as tragic, I'd maybe understand it a bit more. But for it to occur in a licensed premises....I'm perplexed.
Melrose80086  
#32 Posted : 10 October 2012 11:11:36(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Melrose80086

I'd be asking the following; - Did the barman warn her not to drink until the fog had completely cleared and / or stir the drink etc? (I remember from my youth drinking Flaming Lambourgini's and being told by the barman not to drink until the flame had been extinguished by placing a bar mat over the glass and to drink it at the bar rather than walking back to my seat with the flaming glass). - Was the barman fully trained to make the drink up? (and / or had he free poured the liquid nitrogen trying to impress a group of young ladies on a "fun" night out? And yes, I've seen barmen free pour LARGE measures for pretty girls and ask for a kiss for the "privilege"). I do feel sorry for the girl, who will be affected for the rest of her life by this incident whether she was warned or not. She was out having fun with her friends on what should have been a celebration. She legally shouldn't have been in a bar before then so may not have been aware of the effect liquid nitrogen could have if swallowed. Her friends may have been urging her to "drink, drink!", she may not have heard what the barman said...his / her warning not to drink etc... So, turns the page of the free Metro paper and sees a micro brewery in Aberdeenshire has bottled a beer called Armageddon which is 65% proof. Of course, no bar in Aberdeen will sell that to the students up there and no student will be stupid enough to drink a whole pint of the stuff (which is something like 37 times the recommended alchohol consumption for an male in a week) either as a bet or as a dare...or unwillingly because his mates have bought him it "for a larf". Course not... [note to Aberdeen A&E staff to have the stomach pumps ready...]
B.Bruce  
#33 Posted : 10 October 2012 11:30:16(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
B.Bruce

Ian, I am quite disgusted and distrubed by your comments. Not something I would expect from a 'professional' health and safety practitioner at all! As others have quite rightly stated, the girl was 18th (celebrating her 18th birthday if I remember right) and would therefore be inexperienced. Also, as others have stated, the barperson and bar owner have a duty of care to protect others by warning them of the dangers associated with this product and to ensure they are not exposed to unnecessary risk. I'm biting my tongue here because I dont want to be reprimanded by IOSH..............shocking comments Ian, shocking
pdurkin  
#34 Posted : 15 October 2012 17:16:37(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pdurkin

Common sense absolutely,apart from the visual effect who would consider putting a liquid at minus 197 deg C into a drink which from basic physics can expand in ones stomach to x700 in volume ?? Seems common science was not considered as common sense !!! Regards,Paul
User is suspended until 03/02/2041 16:40:57(UTC) Ian.Blenkharn  
#35 Posted : 15 October 2012 17:42:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian.Blenkharn

Context and proportionality, please. There are many injuries caused by simple little cocktail sticks, quite often serious facial, oesophageal and other injuries necessitating emergency surgery. Some documented incidents have been fatal. But nobody has thought to impose an instant ban on cocktail sticks. The knee has simply not jerked. Nor has anyone thought to prosecute cocktail bars for that olive on a stick, the little umbrella, a cube of cheese on a 'hedgehog' or an angel on horseback, though in this last case there was indeed a fatal injury when a diner swallowed just half a stick that subsequently punctured his aorta. No sign of the H&S police at the supermarket as suppliers of these fatal implements, nor in restaurants and the cocktail bars where they might be used. Nor anywhere else for that matter. By contrast, the responses here to this case verge on hysteria. I wonder what the Mythbusters panel would think about suggestions of seeking an 'attempted manslaughter charge'. We should stick with an expectation of at least a modicum of common sense, plus context and proportionality. If that won't suffice, let's ask the mythbuster panel what they think.
Clairel  
#36 Posted : 15 October 2012 17:45:06(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Clairel

You're comparing the risks from cocktail sticks with the risks from liquid nitrogen?????
pdurkin  
#37 Posted : 15 October 2012 17:58:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
pdurkin

Don't understand the response from Ian !! To misquote Michael Caine: 'You you ain't supposed to swallow the sticks'
Canopener  
#38 Posted : 15 October 2012 18:30:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Ian, I am similarly unconvinced with your comparison of cocktails sticks and the use of liquid nitrogen, as used in this example/injury. However, I would agree with your point on attempted manslaughter, I for one would doubt such an offence exists. 'Logic' would suggest it doesn't. As always, happy to be wrong.
pete48  
#39 Posted : 15 October 2012 18:55:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
pete48

I agree with IanB that there does seem to be a willingness to focus on the dramatic headline in this serious incident. I accept Ian’s challenge that the consequence and probability of injury may not be as serious as to warrant a total ban. I do not intend to downplay the traumatic and emotional impact this incident must have had on the woman and her family. However, it has to be said that sometimes it is vitally important that we separate emotion from factual assessment when seeking a proportionate response. After all, isn’t that exactly what we usually accuse the media of failing to do? What factual information do we actually have on which to base any risk judgement? Do any of those who have commented so far have any experience of the use of LN in dispensed drinks; properly understand the mechanism of injury; properly understand the exact nature of the surgery performed and the prognosis for the injured woman? Or is it a case that “our” common sense tells us that LN is such dangerous stuff that barmen etc cannot possibly be trusted with its use? A fair challenge from IanB I think, p48
craigmu  
#40 Posted : 15 October 2012 19:25:35(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
craigmu

N Burrows wrote:
Two thoughts: How will 'Low risk' be defined and by whom? Isn't prevention (by inspection) better than prosecution (following incident)?
Just a thought on this, i would like to think that the presence on LN2 would take the bar out of the low risk category and result in some higher level of risk assessment and/or inspection.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.