I do have some medical training, and I'm inclined to agree with your suspicion that it doesn't actually work.

The "critical" portion only lasts a few seconds, up to a minute. Depending on the direction of the force, 10g for a minute would be close to the edge for untrained people but not expected to have long-lasting harmful effects in most cases.

There are several ways in which high g forces cause harm to humans. The article mentions blood flow, specifically applying the amount of acceleration necessary to stop oxygenated blood from reaching the brain. Completely stopping the flow of blood for 60 seconds will result in a loss of consciousness, but the designers of the coaster seem to be under the impression that achieving this even for a moment kills people. They're wrong. If normal blood flow is restored after 60 seconds of anoxia, no adverse effects are to be expected at all, not even in the short term. Of course statistically there will be cases where the heart enters one of several possible failure modes under these conditions (again mostly in humans with pre-existing health problems) and while I expect it to be rare among the healthy population, those people would indeed need immediate medical attention - but they too can be expected to make a full recovery if they receive it.

High g forces can also damage blood vessels due to simple overpressure, causing them to rupture. This will happen with body parts located in the direction of the force applied. In this design, this will be the lower extremities, where this damage - if it occurs - will be minimal. But if you suspended people "upside down", that would be another story. Overpressure in the blood vessels of the brain is a dangerous thing. Again, I'm not sure 10g for 60 seconds is enough, but I'd intuitively say if there was any way of inducing fatalities with this coaster that would be the way to go. Especially people with existing defects and weaknesses of the blood vessels in their brains would be most at risk, people with aneurisms for example.

Lastly, high g forces can cause tissue trauma due to compression or internal impact damage. 10g for 60 seconds would not be enough to cause that in healthy organs. But if the coaster's design was changed to 20 or 30 g, delivered over an extended period, injuries and fatalities due to organ trauma (including the brain) will occur.

So on final consideration: this roller coaster will cause people to pass out for up to a minute. However, this effect is completely reversible. In healthy people, no lasting damage is expected.

That's great information. I assume though that healthy people wouldn't be euthanizing themselves just for laughs. They'd normally be sick to begin with.

This ride would be great for fraternity hazing. The frat would get some yuks as the pledges went round and round, and the school would have plausible deniability - "the University understood that they were simply enjoying a day at the amusement park".

For a frat hazing, they could simply rent a ride at a centrifuge intended for the training of astronauts and fighter pilots. It's designed to apply the same g forces for the same amount of time, obviating the need to build a 500m high theme park ride ;)

The ride time is 3:20 according to the linked-to page.

I thought this was horrible. I guess it's "art", but still. Yuck.

>> "I thought this was horrible."

What about it did you find horrible? If you wanted to end your life it seems like a relatively pain free way to do so. Artistically it's also pretty interesting imo.

Define pain free. When you get several Gs in your body I'm not sure you don't feel any kind of pain.

If you like this as art then you are probably the kind of person who enjoy the painted cadaver's exhibitions.

I've done some aerobatic flying, and I would not always describe the experience of high G maneuvers as pain-free. Maybe someone more medically inclined could explain why this roller coaster might be different?

Not to mention the 2-minute trip up to the peak...

I find euthanasia to be horrible, so a euthanasia roller coaster is automatically horrible.

I, too, am offended by people wanting control over their own deaths.

They should die when and how I tell them to die, not die with dignity at a time of their choosing!

Involuntary euthanasia is called murder, and that's already illegal.

There are several forms of euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia (against the will of the patient) is something most people would agree is wrong and this roller coaster would unlikely be able to be used for it.

Wouldn't "Involuntary euthanasia" just be murder?

Yes, I think so. Although when discussing euthanasia the distinction is probably made because if involuntary euthanasia were legal there would likely be a list of specific reasons you can do it (therefore drawing a distinction between involuntary euthanasia and murder).

I find it particularly galling that "Death with dignity" is "a silly loaded catchphrase designed to put opponents off balance" and yet "Death with courage" is something you throw in to support that belief. You need to take a moment to listen to your own rhetoric and think about the people your opinions effect.

Of course you are. Otherwise you'd be quietly secure in the knowledge of your own rightness, not trying to pick fights about it on the internet.

Nor are the people who would choose to be euthanized interested in your beliefs. That's their point.

You've said "those who have chosen to die another way," but people don't have that choice and are forbidden from making it. While you're opposed to euthanasia, would you be okay with giving people the option for euthanasia if they so chose?

> The body is always corrupted.

But what of the mind? It's the aspect of choice that lends anything its dignity. Being at peace with your decision. Some people find a measure of dignity in dying naturally, it's in accord with their wishes in that respect. Others don't.

To deny those who are not at peace with it that choice robs them of some of their dignity.

I remember my grandfather dying when I was a teenager, in the hospital he was pleading with everyone around him to kill him. I feel guilty for not doing it whenever I think about him. The one thing the poor bastard wanted, the only thing left anyone could give him.

I can't hold it against him, it's not his fault. When people are suffering that much, they're not really thinking about whether they're asking a child to kill them. But he could have gone weeks earlier, could have been in a position to make the decision for himself rather than being reduced to begging.

He could have been spared that, there'd have been more dignity in it.

There is no such thing as death with dignity. But there are different grades of death with indignity.

And I am free to choose how when (hopefully in a long long time) it comes to that...

> There is no such thing as death with dignity. The body is always corrupted.

Okay! If my inevitable death is going to be corrupt and undignified no matter what I do, then it's a no-brainer to make it quick and painless rather than drawn-out and agonizing.

Why do you find euthanasia horrible? It's much more horrible to force someone to endure sever pain against their will.

I would say the argument comes down to how you value life. Those most opposed to euthanasia are likely to hold the belief that all human life is equally valuable, and there is no such thing as a life not worth living, and to support euthanasia and assist someone in actively taking his or her life, is to abet them in the mistaken belief that their life is not worth living.

The typical response to this is that euthanasia opponents are living in a dreamworld, and lying to themselves. It is obvious at its face that some lives are not worth living, and to think otherwise is foolish.

On the other hand, the euthanasia opponent can reasonably ask how can we both support euthanasia and have suicide prevention hotlines? The existence of both seems to indicate that our societal response to an eagerness to die, rather than being about individual choice, is more about encouraging cultural norms about who is to be valued.

I think that someone dying is pretty horrible, even if it is less horrible than dying some other way.

I personally hope I get to go the way I want to.

... struck directly in the head, from behind, caught completely unawares by something moving at several times the speed of sound, with enough size and kinetic energy to very quickly dissociate my body's molecules with negligible loss to the impactor's velocity. A rocket would do nicely.

I know that there's no sensible way to justify the expense for one person's almost-certainly (based on current understanding of physics and biology) painless death.

But a boy can dream. ;)

What would you say to a surprise .50 BMG in the back of the head from a few hundred yards away? It'd leave a bit more corpse, granted, but there wouldn't be much left of your head, which should satisfy the basic requirement, and it'd be a lot cheaper -- M33 ball goes for something like seven dollars a round, on average. Of course, you'd need to find someone with a suitable rifle to do the shooting, but you'd have even more trouble finding someone to do the same with an RPG or whatever.

...I think this is the most macabre thing I've said all year.

$7/pull would be more painful than the round hitting. Ouch. A rich man's sport. Still, not a bad plan, but the Angel of Mercy should be closer. I wouldn't want the job to be botched because he's got the shakes a little maybe, or maybe there's a breeze.

It also violates my desire to not know it's coming if we've had to arrange for me to be still and the shooter to be at a specific distance and frame of mind.

So, $7 for the round plus the going rate of a professional hitman.

I suddenly have a very macabre desire to crunch the numbers on that vs. a traditional open-casket funeral these days. ;)

Dying is horrible? Why? We all die, it is a known end, why will it be horrible?

Fear.

There's really no point hashing out the argument here. It's a pointless discussion. I was just pointing out one of the possible reasons someone would find this roller coaster to be horrible.

Do you really want to devolve this into yet another internet debate on the morality of euthanasia? That's really not the point of this thought experiment.

What do you find horrible about it?

This is how it would look like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEklVDlqwbQ

I think two minutes of that 3:20 are just getting to the top. The 10g only lasts 60 seconds.

I guess if they inverted it, so that the passengers get exposed to negative g force it would be "safer". It seems that -3g is enough to kill, so 7 loops of -10g would be sure death.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force#Vertical_axis_g-force

Much more difficult to secure against accidental ejection though.

It is indeed terrible to crash accidentally yourself to death when you want to crush yourself to death on purpose.

I was thinking of the cleanup crews. People are always very inconsiderate of those when killing themselves :-/ Ever saw the mess it makes when somebody jumps in front of a train?

Negative G is much more uncomfortable than positive G.

not necessarily, some would black out pretty quickly. Lateral Gs are the by far most uncomfortable G forces (and other non vertical i suppose)

You will never black out from negative G. You will RED out as blood rushes into your eyes. The reason you black out from positive G is that your blood pools in your legs and feet, starving the brain. Negative G is more uncomfortable because our organs are not designed for it, as it isn't encountered in nature.

I think the body can survive the lack of oxygen for several minutes, because there is always oxygen left in the body that the brain can use.

However, if the brain cells consume any oxygen at all, because there is nothing there, they can die pretty quickly such as within 30 seconds.