Don't let your skinnies be the death of you.
An Australian woman found out the hard way that skinny jeans are the silent boa constrictors in your closet.
While helping a family member move, the woman apparently spent several hours squatting to empty lower kitchen cupboards.
The 35 year-old's legs started tingling, then she progressively lost sensation in her feet. By evening, she tried to walk home through a park, and fell. She couldn't stand and had to crawl to track down help.
"When she arrived, her calves were massively swollen - so much so that they had to cut her jeans from her body. They weren't able to remove them any other way," said neurologist Dr. Thomas Kimber, who treated the woman at the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
Known as compartment syndrome, the combination of tight jeans and hours spent squatting effectively cut off the blood supply, causing the woman's calves to swell. The nerves in her lower legs then compressed, resulting in a loss of feeling.
The cut-off blood supply triggered a release of proteins called rhabdomyolysis in her body. Wait; it gets worse. These proteins can actually cause kidney damage.
Though the woman was lucky not to suffer from kidney damage, she had to be on an IV drip. And due to nerve damage, she couldn't walk and remained hospitalized for four days. Four days! All because of her skinny jeans.
Although squatting for too long can cause such nerve damage called "strawberry pickers' neuropathy," the jeans definitely exacerbated the situation.
"There was no capacity for the jeans to stretch, so there was nowhere for the muscles to go but inward. The jeans couldn't accommodate the swelling," said Dr. Kimber.
Moral of the story: if you love your skinny jeans, by all means go on rocking them.
But if you have any actual physical work to do that involves more than standing around looking awesome, you may want to opt for leggings instead.
The music industry at large has Taylor Swift to thank this morning.
The singer penned an open letter condemning Apple for not paying artists royalties during the trial of its new music streaming service in a move she called "shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company."
In the Tumblr missive entitled "To Apple, Love Taylor," Swift wrote that she planned to hold back her '1989' album from the site, stating: “We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”
The expectation these days that all media - music, movies, writing - should be free is endemic. We think nothing of burning or borrowing, but artists deserve to earn a living, too.
It's a pretty simple equation, really: If you enjoy it, pay for it.
To her credit, Swift's tone remained respectful and tactful:
"This is not about me. This is about the young songwriter ... This is about the producer who works tirelessly to innovate and create, just like the innovators and creators at Apple are pioneering in their field…but will not get paid for a quarter of a year’s worth of plays on his or her songs.
These are not the complaints of a spoiled, petulant child. These are the echoed sentiments of every artist, writer and producer in my social circles who are afraid to speak up publicly because we admire and respect Apple so much. We simply do not respect this particular call."
Proof that manners really do help you get what you want - especially if you are Taylor Swift. Mere hours later, no doubt sensing its colossal fail, Apple capitulated and performed a 180.
Although the company had promised to share revenue from paid subscribers to the new Apple Music service, it hadn't planned to pay artists during the free three-month introductory period. Apple Music will cost $10 per month, of which just over 70 per cent will go toward shared royalties.
Kudos to Swift - who has previously pulled her music from the free, ad-based site Spotify - for speaking up and to Apple for listening.
Image Source: WikiCommons
Not drowning, but waving for help... Can you spot the child who's in trouble in this image of a crowded wave pool? It's not easy. But luckily the lifeguard on duty did.
CCTV footage of a public pool in the UK caught the scary moment when a kid flipped off a rubber ring and began flailing in the water. No one appeared to take notice - except for a vigilant lifeguard, who sprang into action and swam over to the child within seconds.
The happy ending has been watched more than 300,000 times, and generated a ton of buzz on social media. Many commenters commended the guard, while sharing harrowing stories of their own close calls and near misses in the water.
Extra caution is needed with wave pools where even strong swimmers can find themselves in trouble if clipped by an unsuspecting wave.
I've only been in a wave pool once, on a school field trip, and the experience terrified me. Though I eventually managed to get to safety, those panicky seconds when I realized no one saw me choking and struggling to stay afloat stayed with me for years.
And unfortunately some lifeguards aren't nearly as reactive as the one in the video. We all have our stories, and my own involves my cousin.
We were swimming in in a busy public pool when my cousin went under. I was several feet away and didn't notice. Neither did the two lifeguards. But my aunt saw, and in a heartbeat dropped her knitting needles and made a most unexpected and dramatic splash: in a long skirt, with her sunglasses on... Her keys and other belongings scattered in the water.
This summer, even if your kids are practically growing fins and gills, please don't get complacent around water.
And remember, drowning can happen to anyone.