ClapAlongChorus t1_j2bbocx wrote

I'm going to press (x) to doubt.

Edit: My doubt is not about whether or not fire can cause injury. Of course it can. I guess I should explain myself.

My apologies to the two people who've replied who apparently know of someone who had an injury from marshmallow or know of someone who had a friend of a friend who lost an eye. That is terrible for them.

But I have got to say, that is a fairly baroque way to suffer an enucleation or a corneal burn. I'm no expert in eye injuries but in my limited experience in children's emergency rooms and a year working with National Electronic Injury Surveillance System,* I would say the vast majority of injuries related to roasting marshmallows happen from (1) starting the fire (2) Falling into the fire (3) messing with the fire.

I'll also add that... I'm not sure how to express this... it takes a while to soften the interior of the marshmallow... over the past couple decades of roasting marshmallows I've seen people lose marshmallows off the end of their stick, but really not often, and it has always just gone into the fire. To lose an eye you'd have to have a soft marshmallow, propel it with enough force to send it over 4 feet away before it lost much altitude, and then be extremely unlucky to hit a relatively small, extremely vital target. When I hear people tell a story with such an extreme outcome, like losing an eye from a marshmellow, I feel like there is probably a much less extreme version of that story that is a lot more likely to happen, and i usually find that version to be more relevant.

All that being said, when I talk to kids about safety around a campfire, I would probably mention 5-30 things before I got to the danger of flying flaming marshmallows.

*Ok i'll be the first to tell you, NEISS would not be the best database to capture this type of injury. Like I said, i'm not a domain expert in eye injuries, but I have seen how a lot of people injure themselves, all i'm saying.


ClapAlongChorus t1_j1a7i0j wrote

oh really?? that's cool, I always assumed the Fusion revolution required a decent amount of fuel and that was never a big deal until massive batteries came along and started using lithium as fast as we could pull it out of the ground in Western Australia. Sometimes it's neat not knowing much because there are so many chances to learn


ClapAlongChorus t1_j13sxwr wrote

correct, entirely possible because the ship and sanitary canal connect the two seperate watersheds in 1900. Before that, there was not a navigable connection between the chicago and the des plaines.

edit: actually the calumet canal connects the south branch to the des plaines river, I think, but I know less about it, other


ClapAlongChorus t1_j13rz9a wrote

hey Obiwan, I think you're misreading the definition of navigable. Up until 1900 with the completion of the of the chicago ship and sanitary canal, there was no connection between the Des Plaines / Illinois River and the Chicago River / Lake Michigan.

Is the divide between the two watersheds very low in elevation? Yes. Was the Chicagoland area a low swamp where travelers often picked up their canoe to get from one waterway to the other? Yes. Could you travel in a boat, without getting out of the boat, with water under the entire boat enough to keep the boat floating, from Lake Michigan to the Des Plaines / Illinois River system? Nope. That is why chicago played engineer with the chicago river.