Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported annually, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medical diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not considered to be). [1]
Aspirated water that reaches the alveoli destroys the pulmonary surfactant.
[2] Upon reaching the alveoli, hypotonic liquid found in fresh water dilutes pulmonary surfactant, destroying the substance.
[2] Comparatively, aspiration of hypertonic seawater draws liquid from the plasma into the alveoli and similarly causes damage to surfactant and disrupts the alveolar-capillary membrane.
[2] Still, there is no clinical difference between salt and freshwater drowning.
[2]
-
^ Szpilman, David; Sempsrott, Justin; Webber, Jonathon; Hawkins, Seth C.; Barcala-Furelos, Roberto; Schmidt, Andrew; Queiroga, Ana Catarina (2018-7).
"'Dry drowning' and other myths". Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 85 (7): 529–535.
doi:
10.3949/ccjm.85a.17070.
ISSN
1939-2869.
PMID
30004377.
{{ cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ a b c d Bierens JJ, Lunetta P, Tipton M, Warner DS. Physiology Of Drowning: A Review. Physiology (Bethesda). 2016 Mar;31(2):147-66.
Comments
Thanks for posting this. Do you think that there is a way to re-word this so that "recognized" is not used twice in the same sentence? There may be a way to re-phrase this whole piece so it reads little easier. Does the source say that all reported dry drowning victims had a different diagnosis? Is this report just from a certain country? I think that you may be able to start the sentence with "Dry and secondary drowing are not considered to be legitimate medical diagnoses"... what do you think? I have not read your source so you will know this better than me! Remember not to use patients/victims in your actual text. In Wikipedia we usually write the articles referring to "people" (unlike what I just wrote). Your class is doing a great job so far with these proposed edits! JenOttawa ( talk) 21:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported annually, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medical diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not considered to be). [1]
Aspirated water that reaches the alveoli destroys the pulmonary surfactant.
[2] Upon reaching the alveoli, hypotonic liquid found in fresh water dilutes pulmonary surfactant, destroying the substance.
[2] Comparatively, aspiration of hypertonic seawater draws liquid from the plasma into the alveoli and similarly causes damage to surfactant and disrupts the alveolar-capillary membrane.
[2] Still, there is no clinical difference between salt and freshwater drowning.
[2]
-
^ Szpilman, David; Sempsrott, Justin; Webber, Jonathon; Hawkins, Seth C.; Barcala-Furelos, Roberto; Schmidt, Andrew; Queiroga, Ana Catarina (2018-7).
"'Dry drowning' and other myths". Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 85 (7): 529–535.
doi:
10.3949/ccjm.85a.17070.
ISSN
1939-2869.
PMID
30004377.
{{ cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) - ^ a b c d Bierens JJ, Lunetta P, Tipton M, Warner DS. Physiology Of Drowning: A Review. Physiology (Bethesda). 2016 Mar;31(2):147-66.
Comments
Thanks for posting this. Do you think that there is a way to re-word this so that "recognized" is not used twice in the same sentence? There may be a way to re-phrase this whole piece so it reads little easier. Does the source say that all reported dry drowning victims had a different diagnosis? Is this report just from a certain country? I think that you may be able to start the sentence with "Dry and secondary drowing are not considered to be legitimate medical diagnoses"... what do you think? I have not read your source so you will know this better than me! Remember not to use patients/victims in your actual text. In Wikipedia we usually write the articles referring to "people" (unlike what I just wrote). Your class is doing a great job so far with these proposed edits! JenOttawa ( talk) 21:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)