She is dead. She caused her own demise. She was apparently capable of engaging in willing sexual activity and carrying the children for 9 months, making that choice for herself. She didn't mean to drink herself to death via cola consumption but did anyway.
Ergo, she qualifies. It doesn't say that you can't have children and still be nominated. Just that you must be dead or rendered sterile as a result of your stupid action.
Simply moronic.
But as long as we're being crass, I think human beings who delight in the demise of other human beings ought to be candidates for a Darwin award themselves.
As stupid as what she did was, I feel some here are taking pleasure from her death. But just remember 8 kids have lost their mother. I wonder if she was a heroin addict or alcoholic would the the reaction be the same.
Coke, Pepsi. All my blood tests came back fine, I'm not obese and I lift weights and exercise. I have a really high metabolism, stayed the same weight my whole life regardless, got lucky because those thousands of empty calories have to be going somewhere.
I must say I drink it with a straw so it goes straight down the back of my throat, the backs of my front teeth have been worn down from when I didn't so had I continued to drink it normally I doubt I would have had any teeth left by now.
Don't think finding the cure for cancer is going to be hampered because of this.
Nothing to see here move along.
This poor woman was an addict. coke can kill as has been said here but addiction has an effevt on the whole family so I would suggest (if not for her) we show a little compassion for her children.
Why do they sell it in 330ml cans then? If you buy a can are you supposed to chuck 130ml of it away?
Because it is a recommended serving and I suppose it is just easier to sell it in the standard sized cans and leave the customer to follow the guidelines or not. Most soft drinks have on the label (per suggested 200ml/250ml) depending on the sugar levels. The Lucozade 1 litre bottle next to me has (per 250ml) as a suggested serving. It's a recommendation, not a law so it's up to the consumer to make their own judgement.
But as long as we're being crass, I think human beings who delight in the demise of other human beings ought to be candidates for a Darwin award themselves.
It's called Schadenfreude, a word or Germanic origin, and so by that reductive logic, all of Germany should die in a moronic way to suit you.
Also, I think your fanciful contemptuous thinking is ignoring the basic tenets of what is required for Darwin Award nomination. By that logic the very people who came up with the award should be nominated. Again, this is inane logic. When and if I decide to attached a dildo to a power drill, rip my own rectum to pieces, die from anal bleeding and a ruptured bowel, then I can be nominated. Just laughing at dumb people dying dumb deaths does not warrant consideration for nomination. Your spiteful comment has been noted however it does not make any sense in relation to anything regarding the Darwin Award requirements.
I don't pity the willfully negiligent or stupidly self indulgent. I'm sorry if that makes you feel inclined to wish death on me via moronic means but that's a little harsh and unnecessary for simply not sharing your views. I'm sure that's more or less the root of fascism, punishing and wishing death on those who don't agree with you. So, I'd rather laugh at the already dumb dead than do that to living people. Maybe you should reconsider your stance on the matter to be less sniping and abrasive.
Because it is a recommended serving and I suppose it is just easier to sell it in the standard sized cans and leave the customer to follow the guidelines or not. Most soft drinks have on the label (per suggested 200ml/250ml) depending on the sugar levels. The Lucozade 1 litre bottle next to me has (per 250ml) as a suggested serving. It's a recommendation, not a law so it's up to the consumer to make their own judgement.
Yes I understand what recommended means. The point is though if the companies recommended serving is 200/250ml it seems ridiculous that they sell it in 330ml cans. Unlike a bottle which you can screw the lid back on, a can by its nature is clearly meant to be consumed in a single go. So surely if the recommended serving is 250ml they should sell it in 250ml cans?
Its like a drug company recommending that people take 500mg of paracetemol and then making it in 700mg tablets.
Don't think finding the cure for cancer is going to be hampered because of this.
Nothing to see here move along.
Agreed.
Yes I understand what recommended means. The point is though if the companies recommended serving is 200/250ml it seems ridiculous that they sell it in 330ml cans. Unlike a bottle which you can screw the lid back on, a can by its nature is clearly meant to be consumed in a single go. So surely if the recommended serving is 250ml they should sell it in 250ml cans?
Its like a drug company recommending that people take 500mg of paracetemol and then making it in 700mg tablets.
Well in most cases, cola is not going to have the same effects as medical grade drugs.
I will agree that your logic is sound and they should sell it in the quantities they recommend but I assume they outsource the production of the actual cans and that they do not wish to spend the extra money on investing in smaller cans or developing them. Also there is the consumer concern that if their portions appear smaller than other beverages, they will dominate less shelf space and appear to offer less comparatively. So they stick to the industry standard rather than deviate from it due to consumer concerns about receiving the right quantity rather than the amount they expect. Although saying that American quantities for drinks seem to be a lot more as they go be weight and not metric liquid measurements so perhaps it is just something to do with marketing in Europe.
This poor woman was an addict. coke can kill as has been said here but addiction has an effevt on the whole family so I would suggest (if not for her) we show a little compassion for her children.
I doubt the 30 cigarettes a day were doing her much good either.
The story is bollocks, as coca-cola say themselves that the cause of death is far from clear.
The quantities of caffeine may have contributed to a heart related issue, but to run with that headline is an example of typical tabloid journalism - aware that most people don't bother to actually read the story.
I think it can reasonably be said that 18 pints of coke a day is likely to have substantially contributed to her death, even if it wasn't the sole cause.
That's not to blame Coca-Cola in any way. They never suggested that anyone should drink 18 pints of the stuff a day. That's wholly her own doing.
Yes I understand what recommended means. The point is though if the companies recommended serving is 200/250ml it seems ridiculous that they sell it in 330ml cans. Unlike a bottle which you can screw the lid back on, a can by its nature is clearly meant to be consumed in a single go. So surely if the recommended serving is 250ml they should sell it in 250ml cans?
Its like a drug company recommending that people take 500mg of paracetemol and then making it in 700mg tablets.
But is 200/250ml a recommended serving or just a way of expressing the nutritional information in a typical portion.
Perhaps a standard glass happens to hold between 200ml and 250ml and by drinking 300ml you are merely consuming 300/250 (1.2) times that amount of calories etc.
The label on my bottle of Sainsbury's Cola provides the information as "typical values per 100ml" whereas a bottle of Sanatogen vitamin pills gives details as "% of Recommended Daily Allowance".
Was this diet coke? Because if it wasn't, then I'm sure the daily intake of 4300 kcal from Coke ALONE wouldn't be any indicator of potential health problems.
Cows have bells round their neck so you can hear them approaching, ditto cats. With the 18 litres sloshing around her insides every time she moved, she'd not stand a chance trying to sneak up on a person.
Comments
I shouldn't laugh but I did.
I'd rather trust them than Sky toss-cocking News
Simply moronic.
But as long as we're being crass, I think human beings who delight in the demise of other human beings ought to be candidates for a Darwin award themselves.
clearly never been adicted to anything. (I guess) or is that just your positive thinking mode talking)!:rolleyes:
Is it any different to someone who dies from alcoholism, lung cancer from smoking or drug related deaths.
Do they all qualify for a Darwin award also?
Coke, Pepsi. All my blood tests came back fine, I'm not obese and I lift weights and exercise. I have a really high metabolism, stayed the same weight my whole life regardless, got lucky because those thousands of empty calories have to be going somewhere.
I must say I drink it with a straw so it goes straight down the back of my throat, the backs of my front teeth have been worn down from when I didn't so had I continued to drink it normally I doubt I would have had any teeth left by now.
This poor woman was an addict. coke can kill as has been said here but addiction has an effevt on the whole family so I would suggest (if not for her) we show a little compassion for her children.
Because it is a recommended serving and I suppose it is just easier to sell it in the standard sized cans and leave the customer to follow the guidelines or not. Most soft drinks have on the label (per suggested 200ml/250ml) depending on the sugar levels. The Lucozade 1 litre bottle next to me has (per 250ml) as a suggested serving. It's a recommendation, not a law so it's up to the consumer to make their own judgement.
It's called Schadenfreude, a word or Germanic origin, and so by that reductive logic, all of Germany should die in a moronic way to suit you.
Also, I think your fanciful contemptuous thinking is ignoring the basic tenets of what is required for Darwin Award nomination. By that logic the very people who came up with the award should be nominated. Again, this is inane logic. When and if I decide to attached a dildo to a power drill, rip my own rectum to pieces, die from anal bleeding and a ruptured bowel, then I can be nominated. Just laughing at dumb people dying dumb deaths does not warrant consideration for nomination. Your spiteful comment has been noted however it does not make any sense in relation to anything regarding the Darwin Award requirements.
I don't pity the willfully negiligent or stupidly self indulgent. I'm sorry if that makes you feel inclined to wish death on me via moronic means but that's a little harsh and unnecessary for simply not sharing your views. I'm sure that's more or less the root of fascism, punishing and wishing death on those who don't agree with you. So, I'd rather laugh at the already dumb dead than do that to living people. Maybe you should reconsider your stance on the matter to be less sniping and abrasive.
Yes I understand what recommended means. The point is though if the companies recommended serving is 200/250ml it seems ridiculous that they sell it in 330ml cans. Unlike a bottle which you can screw the lid back on, a can by its nature is clearly meant to be consumed in a single go. So surely if the recommended serving is 250ml they should sell it in 250ml cans?
Its like a drug company recommending that people take 500mg of paracetemol and then making it in 700mg tablets.
Agreed.
Well in most cases, cola is not going to have the same effects as medical grade drugs.
I will agree that your logic is sound and they should sell it in the quantities they recommend but I assume they outsource the production of the actual cans and that they do not wish to spend the extra money on investing in smaller cans or developing them. Also there is the consumer concern that if their portions appear smaller than other beverages, they will dominate less shelf space and appear to offer less comparatively. So they stick to the industry standard rather than deviate from it due to consumer concerns about receiving the right quantity rather than the amount they expect. Although saying that American quantities for drinks seem to be a lot more as they go be weight and not metric liquid measurements so perhaps it is just something to do with marketing in Europe.
Has Sky News been re-branded?
Anyway, very sad case.
I doubt the 30 cigarettes a day were doing her much good either.
I think it can reasonably be said that 18 pints of coke a day is likely to have substantially contributed to her death, even if it wasn't the sole cause.
That's not to blame Coca-Cola in any way. They never suggested that anyone should drink 18 pints of the stuff a day. That's wholly her own doing.
But is 200/250ml a recommended serving or just a way of expressing the nutritional information in a typical portion.
Perhaps a standard glass happens to hold between 200ml and 250ml and by drinking 300ml you are merely consuming 300/250 (1.2) times that amount of calories etc.
The label on my bottle of Sainsbury's Cola provides the information as "typical values per 100ml" whereas a bottle of Sanatogen vitamin pills gives details as "% of Recommended Daily Allowance".
That's nothing, I was born without any teeth at all!