I'm pretty sure his GF worked at the Taco Bell he crashed into. Maybe they didn't say it, but sure seems a little coincidental
-Jamie M.
|
|
|
Wear your gear... ***WARNING: GRAPHIC***
- Thread starter OneTwo
- Start date
-Jamie M.
rmemedic
Well-known member
Gotta love the great medical minds from people with no experience of amputations. I've seen more than just a couple of them guys.
There is a video on the net of a woman that got run over and is laying in the street. Bilateral amputation at the femur and almost no blood loss go look for it.
I've seen amputations bleed almost nothing and I've also seen them gush out like a garden hose.
There is a video on the net of a woman that got run over and is laying in the street. Bilateral amputation at the femur and almost no blood loss go look for it.
I've seen amputations bleed almost nothing and I've also seen them gush out like a garden hose.
vrus
Well-known member
I'd believe the army medic over armchair-joe!
Also, I've seen enough ogrish/liveleak to decide it's not fake!
If its shopped or not, the point is clear....
Yup, plenty of CSI wannabes.
I'm kind of curious to know in what scenario a clean leg amputation would cause no arterial bleeding.
He already stated the scenario earlier in the thread.
The body has the ability through the shock reaction/adrenaline to pinch off blood loss from major wounds at least temporarily, by constricting the arteries leading away from the core of the body and keeping blood flow to the core of the body in order to sustain the vital organs and brains, when the peripheral limbs have been traumatically damaged .. This is the very definition of shock.
Last edited:
emortal1333
Active member
I gotta be honest. It's a bit dubious to expect severance of a leg, mid thigh, to not bleed.
The definition of shock is dependent on the cause. While it's true that in general shock arterioles/capillary beds constrict in the periphery and core perfusion is maintained, this does not mean it completely restricts blood flow to the appendages. If this were so, those in shock would frequently see tissue damage due to a decrease in nutrient delivery to those tissues, which is not the case in most shock victims. In a scenario like this, shock would result in a general decrease in peripheral perfusion, not just the injured limb.
That said, you will see bleeding if a limb is lopped off. Some vessels are still kept patent to provide a basal level of nutrient supply to and waste removal from tissues but allowing the majority of blood volume to be kept in the core. There is no blood in the pictures of OP at all; just a bit of tissue dangling from the leg.
In the case of IEDs, if people are seeing dismemberment via explosives not resulting in drastic bleeds, might I suggest it be due to a cauterizing effect of the explosive on the vessels at the severed end of the limb?
Last edited:
rmemedic
Well-known member
There is a video on the net for your proof that a clean, mid-thigh amputation can resist bleeding for a period of time. Incident was a shark bite on a SCUBA diver, clean, mid-thigh amputation. Diver gets pulled on the the boat and lays there for a few seconds with very little blood coming from the wound, then suddenly as he starts to relax after being out of the "danger" of being in the water, the body relaxes and it starts to gush out in pulsations... Find the video and there is your proof. I saw that video in one of our tactical medicine classes to show us the proof that it may not immediately bleed.
It's false to believe that the IEDs cause cauterizations of the wounds. Most of the injury that causes amputation is from secondary blast injury, so things like debris and shrapnel. The primary blast wave does things like rupture organs, blow out ear drums, etc.
We immediately put on tourniquettes of amputations even if we don't see bleeding. There must be a reason we're taught that right? Oh yeah, that's because the body can sometimes protect itself until it starts to decompensate!
I've seen wounds not bleed, but as the patients condition worsened the bleeds would become serious due to the body not being able to form clots and constrict blood vessels.
^^ Is right you bleed then you stop (from shock) then you bleed again...
IED's don't cauterize anything. They are PSI and shrapnel damaging devices. I have seen the aftermath of quite a few IED and mine strikes. Cauterization occurs when you get hit with incendiary like white phosphorus...
Initial bleed out.
And a still from the video that seems to be long gone. Not surprising since this happened around the 2007/2008 new year.
IED's don't cauterize anything. They are PSI and shrapnel damaging devices. I have seen the aftermath of quite a few IED and mine strikes. Cauterization occurs when you get hit with incendiary like white phosphorus...
Initial bleed out.
And a still from the video that seems to be long gone. Not surprising since this happened around the 2007/2008 new year.
Last edited:
rmemedic is right. it's likely shock (and perhaps the way he's sitting) keeping the bleeding in check. but even if it were a "bleeder" don't expect to see "a lot" of blood. people who think this is photoshopped because there's no enormous pool of blood or blood gushing like a supersoaker have watched way too many slasher movies.
and that's not a "clean" amputaion. that foot's pretty much torn off. it's pretty much what these things look like.
and that's not a "clean" amputaion. that foot's pretty much torn off. it's pretty much what these things look like.
Last edited:
Does the label "csi wannabe" only apply to those who think this is shopped and have "no experience of amputations"?
or does it also cover those who think it is real and "no experience of amputations"???? Seems to me that it should cover all those
who have "no experience of amputations" regardless of point of view.......shouldn't it????
It would seem that rmemedic has this experience so I lean his way but this is just my unexperienced "csi wannabe" guess.
Last edited:
Humans have 4.7l of blood, but after about 2l are lost the body starts shutting down the circulatory system. As others said, periferal organs and appendages are the first to be cut off through vasoconstriction so in the end I am not at all surprised there isn't more blood splattered on the ground.
Besides, what is this obsession with the images being photoshopped? If they make you uneasy, don't look at them. But don't try to avoid the discomfort by discard their meaning. There's a lesson to be learned from riding without safety gear and crashing.
*double post*
|
|
|
|
|