Report on Boy Who Died on Mission: Space

[peter11435]

Now, I haven't been on the ride, but you can't tell me its the same as a gravitron. If it were, Disney would have saved a few tens of millions of dollars and put show elements around gravitron technology instead of NASA technology.

I said the ride was no more intense than a gravitron. As far as what makes it a thrill ride, M:S is no different than a gravitron ride. There is far more technology that went in to M:S however that did not make it more intense than a gravitron only better.

Good point, and that's why this tragedy should raise a few red flags, beyond just the concern over this one boy's life. I think we'd agree that Disney could not successfully operate with rides that claim the lives of 4 people a year who did nothing wrong other than carry around an undiagnosed pre-existing condition.

Don't you think thats a little absurd. So far in over two years of operation only one person has been seriously injured or killed. Not four a year. People could die (and do) of undiagnosed conditions on any ride including ones you would never think about being a problem.

The fact is, neither you nor I know if your statement is true. Those rides put different types of physical stresses on the body for different lengths of time, and contain different visual elements. Your making an assumption that is no more valid than somebody saying that if one person died on a ride in the first year, 20 will die in 20 years.

While you are correct that none of us on the boards know what may have happened had he rode SM instead. The fact remains that ME's report clearly states People with this condition are at risk for sudden death throughout their life due to abnormal electrical heart rhythms. and points out that stressfull activity including Sports could have caused the same thing.

 

[YoHo]

But the nature and amount of stress dictates the percentage chance it will happen. basic statistics says that he was less likely to die on Space mountain then on M:S

 

[peter11435]

But the nature and amount of stress dictates the percentage chance it will happen. basic statistics says that he was less likely to die on Space mountain then on M:S

True, but the amount of stress on SM may have been more than enough to do it as well. However we are not experts in that field and will most likely never know for sure.

 

[YoHo]

Well, with that particular condition, it was suggested he could have dropped dead for no reason at all too. But we're talking about trends and statistics over the life of Disney's rides and how that relates to their postition as a provider of family entertainment. This boy's death is just a jumping off point for that discussion, not the topic itself.

 

[raidermatt]

Don't you think thats a little absurd. So far in over two years of operation only one person has been seriously injured or killed. Not four a year. People could die (and do) of undiagnosed conditions on any ride including ones you would never think about being a problem.

No, its not absurd. It may seem ok for one ride to have 1 death every 2 years. If that's ok with you on moral grounds, I can't say anything to change your mind. But from a practical perspective, do you think Disney could handle the negative pub if 1 person dies every two years on M:S? Further, Disney has 4 theme parks in Orlando, 2 more in Anaheim. How many rides with a rate of one death every 2 years, or even 5 years, could they handle from a practical pov?

I'm not talking about deaths like somebody jumping out, or the elderly lady passing peacefully on Pirates. I'm talking about people with no known physical limitations who follow the rules and die while the ride is functioning properly.

At some point, it would cause issues. So no, its not absurd at all to say that even if you morally have an "acceptable loss" rate, there is still a practical rate that you have very little control over, given that its established through the media and in the court of public opinion.

Again, M:S's relative age makes one death significant, at least in terms of asking questions. If somebody were to die on Space Mountain, for example, it wouldn't be as much of a cause for concern because one death in 30 years (with two locations) is probably fluky enough to not raise concern from the publc.

Further, with Disney's apparent move to wanting to add more M:S like rides, it becomes something they have no choice but to at least consider. And maybe they are.

People could die (and do) of undiagnosed conditions on any ride including ones you would never think about being a problem.

Yet it hasn't been happening on the other rides that have been open for much longer. Again, that doesn't PROVE anything, but it is a red flag. That's all I'm saying. It might mean nothing, but you can't tell me its not a reason to ask questions.

I said the ride was no more intense than a gravitron. As far as what makes it a thrill ride, M:S is no different than a gravitron ride. There is far more technology that went in to M:S however that did not make it more intense than a gravitron only better.

I don't know all the data about the relative g's, types of g's and duration, so I won't question that. However, the visual elements are a part of the experience and certainly have an impact on how the ride affects a person. For example, somebody spinning in a gravitron on the boardwalk might get really dizzy or disoriented, but someone doing the same thing but seeing images in space might have a very different physical reaction. Might stress the heart more, cause more or less disorientation, etc.

 

[peter11435]

No, its not absurd. It may seem ok for one ride to have 1 death every 2 years. If that's ok with you on moral grounds, I can't say anything to change your mind. But from a practical perspective, do you think Disney could handle the negative pub if 1 person dies every two years on M:S? Further, Disney has 4 theme parks in Orlando, 2 more in Anaheim. How many rides with a rate of one death every 2 years, or even 5 years, could they handle from a practical pov?

There is no reason to say that someone will die on M:S every two years. Sure it has only been open two years and has already had one. But for all you know there may not be another M:S related death for 30 years. I death every two years is not ok with me, but it is also not the case with M:S. This is not a case of one death every two years but rather a case of one death in two years. Thats a very different thing. Saying that M:S has a rate of 1 death every two years is jumping to conclusions, and yes I do think it is absurd to say at this point.

I'm not talking about deaths like somebody jumping out, or the elderly lady passing peacefully on Pirates. I'm talking about people with no known physical limitations who follow the rules and die while the ride is functioning properly.

But thats not the case. The ME's report shows that the boy on M:S did have a physical limitation. One that warning signs at the ride clearly tell you not to ride with. Obviously they don't help when you don't know you have the problem, but the fact remains that this was not a case of someone with no physical limitations dieing on the ride.

Again, M:S's relative age makes one death significant, at least in terms of asking questions. If somebody were to die on Space Mountain, for example, it wouldn't be as much of a cause for concern because one death in 30 years (with two locations) is probably fluky enough to not raise concern from the publc.

Again how do you know that M:S won't operate without a death for the next 30 years.

I don't know all the data about the relative g's, types of g's and duration, so I won't question that. However, the visual elements are a part of the experience and certainly have an impact on how the ride affects a person. For example, somebody spinning in a gravitron on the boardwalk might get really dizzy or disoriented, but someone doing the same thing but seeing images in space might have a very different physical reaction. Might stress the heart more, cause more or less disorientation, etc.

Agreed

 

[BankBunny]

I believe, as was quoted, I said he "could" have died just as easily on Space Monutain, not that he "would" have. Nothing about that statement said I knew for sure.

Quote:
I'm not talking about deaths like somebody jumping out, or the elderly lady passing peacefully on Pirates. I'm talking about people with no known physical limitations who follow the rules and die while the ride is functioning properly.

Isn't that exactly it-the right was functioning properly. Should Disney question every thrill ride they are thinking of building because of what might happen to someone who doesn't know that they have an undiagnosed condition? What about other theme parks? Should there be no thirll rides at all because of what could happen? To me that's like saying I shouldn't have come to work today because I might have gotten into a fatel car accident on the highway this morning.

 

[peter11435]

...And you know they just announced they are going to stop making Snickers. They said they were afraid someone might eat it that doesn't know they are allergic to peanuts.

 

[raidermatt]

There is no reason to say that someone will die on M:S every two years. Sure it has only been open two years and has already had one. But for all you know there may not be another M:S related death for 30 years. I death every two years is not ok with me, but it is also not the case with M:S. This is not a case of one death every two years but rather a case of one death in two years. Thats a very different thing. Saying that M:S has a rate of 1 death every two years is jumping to conclusions, and yes I do think it is absurd to say at this point.

You're starting to make me think you aren't really reading all of my post. Granted, they aren't the most exciting reads, but if you're going to respond...

I never said you can accurately extrapolate from the one death that has occurred in the 2 years of operation. I only said that is all the data we have, and that raises QUESTIONS. Questions that Disney should be seriously looking into, and maybe even are. I also said it doesn't PROVE anything, but again raise QUESTIONS.

Are you seriously disagreeing with that?

But thats not the case. The ME's report shows that the boy on M:S did have a physical limitation. One that warning signs at the ride clearly tell you not to ride with. Obviously they don't help when you don't know you have the problem, but the fact remains that this was not a case of someone with no physical limitations dieing on the ride.

Again, read all of what I wrote. You even quoted it. I said "I'm talking about people with no known physical limitations". So yes, that was the case. Nobody knew this boy had a condition.

You can't deny that this wasn't bad pub for Disney, can you? Again, the points I'm making are not on moral, or even common sense grounds. Whether you or I think Disney had any fault is irrelevant. The fact is, deaths like this are bad for the company. They have to take them seriously if only for their own self-preservation, particularly with a relatively new ride.

Its really kind of ironic... if somebody gets out of a vehicle and jumps to their demise, the public largely won't blame Disney, but the legal system will. Conversely, if a guest does nothing wrong but had a rare, undiagnosed pre-exisiting condition, the courts aren't likely to penalize Disney, but the public will.

Now AGAIN, this one tragedy, in and of itself, is not cause for Disney to shut anything down, or stop making anything. It only raises questions.

Again how do you know that M:S won't operate without a death for the next 30 years.

Again, I don't. Just as you don't know that it won't have 2 next month. The point is, the only data we have is 1 in 2 years. That data requires further analysis, which admittedly, we cannot perform ourselves. But it can't be brushed off, either.

I believe, as was quoted, I said he "could" have died just as easily on Space Monutain, not that he "would" have. Nothing about that statement said I knew for sure.

But see, if that's really your position, then it doesn't support the idea that this incident doesn't raise any cause for concern. So why say it? Remember, my point isn't that anything needs to be shut down at this point, only that some serious research, or validation of prior research needs to be done.

Should Disney question every thrill ride they are thinking of building because of what might happen to someone who doesn't know that they have an undiagnosed condition?

Well, yes. In fact, that's exactly what I've been saying. Thay HAVE to seriously consider it, even if its only because they can only afford to have an extremely small number of these types of incidents. Of course, M:S is not some thing they are thinking of building, but something that is already operational.

Should there be no thirll rides at all because of what could happen?

No. But what could happen has to be weighed very carefully based on the frequency it might occur. Do you disagree?

To me that's like saying I shouldn't have come to work today because I might have gotten into a fatel car accident on the highway this morning.

Well, since nobody said that thrill rides shouldn't be built, nobody is going to say you shouldn't have come to work.

Besides that, the problem with those types of analogies is that the standard for acceptance is deemed different by the public. Regardless of whether you or I agree with that, its a fact. We all know we are far more likely to die in a car accident than we are to die when riding a thrill ride.

But the public also will accept far more automobile fatalities before they'll give up their cars than they will accept deaths on rides before they will clamor for change or stop visiting.

Has Disney reached that point? Of course not. But when a fairly new thrill ride has a fatality like this while dozens of other thrill rides had no such instances in decades of operation, it can't be brushed off.

Does that apply to other theme park operators? Of course. But Disney has far more guests than any other operator, and also comes under more public scrutiny because of their name recognition. Part of that blessing/curse thing that comes up in so many conversations around here. Its great to have a powerful, well known brand name to take advantage of, but it also comes with some extra responsibility, fair or unfair.

 

[usamickey]

As we all know, throughout our lives we face risks. Some of us are bigger risk takers than others. When a person dies on a ski slope, do we blame the ski resort. Even if that person hit a tree, the risk with skiing is always there. MS has many warnings posted regarding it's intensity. Whether a person choses to ride, that is totally his/her decision. Although it a a tremendous tragedy that this young boy passed away while riding MS, we must remember that everyday we make choices which may possess some risk. Disney does not require anyone to ride MS, and to imply that they are at fault, raises the question, who is responsible for our actions?

 

[crusader]

Its really kind of ironic... if somebody gets out of a vehicle and jumps to their demise, the public largely won't blame Disney, but the legal system will. Conversely, if a guest does nothing wrong but had a rare, undiagnosed pre-exisiting condition, the courts aren't likely to penalize Disney, but the public will.

Not true.

Disney would get blamed by the public and sued for negligence, for not mitigating the risk of a guest having the ability to jump out of a ride to his death.

They won't get blamed by the public when a rare undiagnosed heart condition results in a tragedy which can occur at any given moment in that individual's lifetime.

Remember, my point isn't that anything needs to be shut down at this point, only that some serious research, or validation of prior research needs to be done.

Serious research? You make it seem as if the company didn't already do that. Are you basing this on the manufacturers safety disclaimers? Do you know for a fact that the actual research done on this attraction was really insufficient enough to warrant your request based on a circumstance already identified by the company as a high risk factor?

 

[disneyholic family]

the following is the complete AP article, from which the piece in the OP came......it talks about the risks of riding a roller coaster:


By Travis Reed
ASSOCIATED PRESS

2:14 p.m. November 15, 2005

ORLANDO, Fla. – A 4-year-old boy who died after riding a rocket-ship ride at Walt Disney World was killed by a heart condition that can be aggravated by physical or emotional stress, an autopsy said Tuesday.
Daudi Bamuwamye of Sellersville, Pa., died in June after riding "Mission: Space."

The boy had a condition that caused an abnormal thickening of the heart and produced an irregular heartbeat, the autopsy revealed. People who suffer from the condition are at risk of sudden death throughout their lives, the medical examiner's office said.

"This risk could be increased under physical or emotional stressful situations," the office said in a statement. "This condition may also eventually lead to heart failure."

Disney officials issued a statement saying their sympathies were with the boy's family. "In regard to the reports, we believe they speak for themselves," it said.

The $100 million Epcot ride, one of Disney World's most popular, was closed after the death but reopened after company engineers concluded it was operating normally.

"Mission: Space" spins riders in a giant centrifuge that subjects them to twice the normal force of gravity, and it is so intense that some riders have been taken to the hospital with chest pain.

A warning sign posted last year reads: "For safety you should be in good health, and free from high blood pressure, heart, back or neck problems, motion sickness or other conditions that can be aggravated by this adventure."

The autopsy said the boy apparently had the condition since birth, but it was unclear if his parents knew about it. Their lawyer, Robert Samartin, issued a brief statement but did not return calls.

"Mr. and Mrs. Bamuwamye and their daughter, Ruthie, remain crushed by this devastating loss. They would like to thank everyone for their continued thoughts and prayers," Samartin said.

Meanwhile, a study released Tuesday at an American Heart Association conference in Dallas gave support to the notion that heart problems can be triggered or aggravated by roller coaster rides.

Researchers at the University Hospital of Mannheim in Germany put 55 healthy people on roller coaster rides and monitored their heart rates during the two-minute experience. Average heart rates rose from 89 beats per minute before the ride to 155 just afterward, with women's rates rising significantly more than men's.

These rates are high enough to trigger rhythm problems, and two participants experienced different types of them.

"We strongly recommend to people with heart disease not to ride a roller coaster," said the study leader Dr. Jurgen Kuschyk, a cardiologist at University Hospital in Mannheim, Germany.

 

[DisneyDotty]

Very sad for that family.
However, the boy's condition does cause spontaneous death. Happens frequently. I remember a guy in my college dorm died from it after some touch football. Doesn't seem to me that Disney is to blame.
And responding to a earlier post--I'm not sure the girl died on the Tower of Terror ride. Does anyone know the update on her?
Thanks.

 

[disneyholic family]

Very sad for that family.
However, the boy's condition does cause spontaneous death. Happens frequently. I remember a guy in my college dorm died from it after some touch football. Doesn't seem to me that Disney is to blame.
And responding to a earlier post--I'm not sure the girl died on the Tower of Terror ride. Does anyone know the update on her?
Thanks.

i'm curious about her too.....she was taken back to the UK in August, in critical but stable condition......but i haven't heard anything about her since...

 

[SoCalKDG]

Leading cause of death in children up to 24 years of age.

1-4 years:
· Accidents
· Developmental and genetic conditions that were present at birth
· Cancer
5-14 years:
· Accidents
· Cancer
· Homicide
15-24 years:
· Accidents
· Homicide


So what is the leading cause of these accidents?

The automobile accounts for the largest number of these accidental deaths.

Next is accidental drowning, fire, falls, and poisoning.



Should automakers make cars X% more expensive if it cuts down on auto accidents by Y%. How about not allowing pools to people with young kids? No cooking to prevent fires? No sports, biking, rollerskating, etc? Obviously we can take precautions to prevent these things from happening. The problem is if our child has a condition we don't know about, the chances of this occuring is greater.

If MS has a death every two years over a 6 year period and all were similar deaths, then maybe we can establish a pattern. If raising the height limit by 2" keeps that pattern from reoccuring, then that is what Disney should do.

Until then I don't see anyway you can place blame on anyone, from Disney to the parents. It was an unfortunate accident, and from the above chart we can see that accidents occur every day to kids.

 

[BankBunny]

I would like to think that Disney did do as much research as they could before developing MS or any other thrill ride. There are only so many unknown variables that can be taken into account. I think that is all I have to say on this issue because it seems that raidermatt is going to challange and argue everything that I say as well as what other posters say. And I personally am tired of arguing over my opinions and views.

 

[DancingBear]

Raidermatt, you are correct that having one death in two years of operations is a reason to investigate further.

But when you learn the cause of this death, and (making some assumptions here, consistent with the medical examiner's report, that would be easily confirmable with the medical experts in this field) that (1) the risk of this death occuring would have been substantially the same on Space Mountain, or Big Thunder Mountain, and (2) these risks would not be substantially reduced with an age restriction or increased height restriction, then the significance of having had one death in just two years of operation really goes away, doesn't it?

Other than confirming items (1) and (2), why would this death in particular be a reason for Disney further researching this ride?

Whether Disney has done enough research on the effects of the sustained G forces created in this ride may be an open question, but, now that we have this medical examiner's report, I don't see how this unfortunate death makes that question any more urgent.

 

[Another Voice]

There is no right or wrong answer to this problem. It comes down to a judgment call based on one’s values and morals.

We all know that everyday life has a certain, if small, risk factor. We all make decisions based on those risks everyday; we all assume some risk is going to be out of our control.

However, things are different for a business. They are in the position of assessing risks for other people. The greater that risk is above “everyday circumstances”, the greater the responsibility falls onto the business.

The scope of WDW’s operation is vast. Assuming the lowest rate of occurrence of the “undiagnosed medical condition” sighted, 0.005%, means statistical 600 people with that condition went to Epcot last year based on the attendance level.

Those people have no way of judging the risk they are at in “everyday life”, and certainly have no ability to judge the additional risk they will be incurring riding ‘Mission: Space’. The greater the stresses placed on theses people, the greater the number that will be affected and the greater the impact that stress will have.

Running a theme park attracting 12 million people every year is vastly different than running a Gravitron ride at the local shopping mall and getting a few thousand (if you’re lucky). To compare the two circumstances is silly – and worse – a tremendous understatement of the problem.

The ugly fact is that it’s up to Disney to figure out how many of those 600 people will die as “just one of those things”. The auto industry, and the public, through the decades have seem to come to a agreement about the level of safety for cars – one that has changed drastically over the years.

Disney had set a level of safety that the public both agreed with and one that was held up as a model for all to follow. Disney draws a certain type of person, one certainly less risk-taking than someone going to a Six Flag coaster park, one more trusting of the ride’s operator than someone going to a carnival in a parking lot. People assume that Disney knows what it is doing, and does it well – and that they will be safe.

Disney is changing that perception. They are introducing attractions that are outside the scope of what they have offered before, but in a way to leaves people to believe they are in no more risk. Whether it’s Disney’s “fault” or not – Disney will still be tagged with the responsibility.

Some people will can accept that “only” one person ever two years dies so they can spin about on a favorite ride. Others may not. It's a matter that will be determined over time as the public judges the number of "just one of those things".

 

[raidermatt]

I've never seen so many get so defensive about somebody taking a decidely moderate pov.

For those listing the reletive risks and comparing to things like automobiles, I can only continue to say that while those comparisons maybe valid for any given individual to make decisions, they have NOTHING to do with how this stuff affects Disney. Disney could not remain a viable entity if their numbers were anything like the automobile industry's. I'm not saying that's "fair" or "just", or even logical. Only that its a fact.

Note that I'm also not saying this incident puts them in that danger zone. I'm only saying that if they wait until they hit that point, its too late.

Not true.

Disney would get blamed by the public and sued for negligence, for not mitigating the risk of a guest having the ability to jump out of a ride to his death.

They won't get blamed by the public when a rare undiagnosed heart condition results in a tragedy which can occur at any given moment in that individual's lifetime.

No, Disney does not get blamed by the public when a guest does something stupid. A guest died when he got out of the Splash vehicle. A boy nearly died when he got out of Roger Rabbit. The public expressed no outrage at these incidents, though as I said, the courts do, and as a result Disney made changes.

Even in this era of shunning personal responsibility, the public still takes a far more stern view of this than the courts.

The public has less sympathy when the person followed all of the rules. No, this one incident won't cause any real backlash, but should they continue to happen on any kind of regular basis, at the very least changes would be forced.

The only caveat to all that is that I'm not sure how the legal system would react if somebody like the parents in this incident brought a suit. My guess is that it would depend on relative risks and frequencies and what Disney could "reasonably" be expected to do. With a jury, you never know for sure how those things will turn out.


DB, what I'm saying is that the stakes are too high to completely wipe away the concern based on the medical report. It's not like mistakes or misjudgements never occur. And while Disney can point to the report as legal protection, it won't help them nearly as much in the court of public opinion if another child dies in the reasonably near future.

If the numbers in the link about this condition are accurate, and we assume 25k guests per day in Epcot, then 12 to 50 people come to Epcot with this condition each day, most of whom are not diagnosed. Only a certain percentage of them go on the ride of course, but at the same time, at least a few people with this condition ride that ride every day. On the one hand, that means even if you have this condition, your risk is relatively low. On the other hand, it also means the sample size isn't nearly as large as the "1 in x million" being thrown around.

Yes, apparently the experts say it was no more likely to happen on M:S than on Space Mt or Big Thunder. But as a business manager, I wouldn't be able to ignore the fact that it did happen on M:S when it had been open just over a year, and had not happened on those other two rides despite well over 100 years of combined operation. If nothing else, I'd have to consider that its my butt on the line, not the experts'.

AGAIN, I'm only saying that questions should be asked and further research done and/or validated. I'm not, however, saying that it should be done with full public disclosure at this time.

If your response to that is "I'm sure they did do this", then I'm not really going to try to dispute that opinion. I may not be as confident in that as you, but still, I know I have no real base to argue it. I'm only a little unsure based on other things the company has done and how they operate in general. But that's not really direct evidence, I know.

Just note that I never said I thought they didn't do their due diligence, or even that they didn't do more after the accident. I only said they need to be sure they did. If your response is this incident shouldn't have caused them to do any further evaluation beyond just ensuring the ride was operating with specs, then that's what I'm disagreeing with. The stakes are just too high, both in terms of human life and public reputation. They have a lot of money invested in that ride and in their parks in general, and I don't see how doing some more research and/or validation wouldn't be justified.

 

[Sarangel]

I dunno Matt, if the condition is undiagnosed, how can you do anything to prevent it? I can't help but see the parallels between this death and the one in Typhoon Lagoon (which was also an undiagnosed condition). What exactly would you have Disney look at to try and avert this kind of tragedy?

This is just my opinion, but I wasn't all that impressed with the G-forces in M:S. I've been on roller coasters that were worse. Maybe I'm just lucky.

Sarangel