Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Straightup32 t1_j6befui wrote

Fun Fact:

Cat can survive really great heights! Like 15 plus stories! This is because they can position themselves in a way that their terminal velocity is lower than the impact needed to sustain extensive damage.

In fact, the most dangerous height they can hurt themselves is between 4-5 stories because it’s high enough for them to get hurt, but not high enough to position themselves.

26

Thr0w-a-gay t1_j6bhwe9 wrote

"Another possible explanation for this phenomenon is survivorship bias, that cats who die in falls are less likely to be brought to a veterinarian than injured cats, and thus many of the cats killed in falls from higher buildings are not reported in studies of the subject."

Further more

>In a 2004 study, it was reported that cats falling from higher places suffered more severe injuries than those experiencing shorter drops

59

bremidon t1_j6ci3p6 wrote

I followed the links to the original sources.

Your first one comes from "The Straight Dope". It's an entertaining place for odd facts, but I would not treat it as a primary source. In any case, when we read about Cecil's attempts to clear the matter, we eventually reach this point:

>I called the Animal Medical Center to see if this possibility had been considered. The original authors were long gone, so I spoke to Dr. Michael Garvey, head of the medical department and current expert on “high-rise syndrome.”

Dr. Garvey was adamant that the omission of nonreported fatalities didn’t skew the statistics. He pointed out that cats that had fallen from great heights typically had injuries suggesting they’d landed on their chests, which supports the “flying squirrel” hypothesis.

So while technically true that this point was raised in the not-entirely-primary-source article, it was pretty much dismissed by the expert interviewed for that same article. When pressed, apparently Dr. Garvey allowed that reasonable people could disagree, but the fact that the expert falls on the "it's wrong" side, this point should probably be taken with suspicious eyes.

Your second one is more interesting. There have been different studies over the years and in some of them, we do get reports of more serious injuries in cats falling from higher places. In others, there is a dramatic decrease in injuries. As far as I was able to gather in a cursory look through the data, this is still a completely open question as to which data is more representative. Perhaps someone has a metastudy on this.

The nature of the injuries changes dramatically, though. At higher distances, cats can prepare themselves, get righted, and loosen up their legs for landing. The injuries tend to be more in their chest cavity. At shorter distances, the injuries tend to be more of the "broken limb" variety.

8

mattot999 t1_j6d48wv wrote

Are you implying an expert may be better informed on a topic relevant to them? I bet you'll tell me something silly like I should consider their opinion on the matter /s

3

DasMotorsheep t1_j6d4hfm wrote

I don't know man. If a child can hold a cat in their arms belly up, drop it and the cat will land feet-first, I somehow doubt that "a couple of stories high" is somehow not enough time for the cat to right itself and prepare for the impact.

−2

bremidon t1_j6ds2pf wrote

I would recommend that you follow the links in the Wikipedia article to the original sources. You'll see why the data makes clear that there is a difference. (The cutoff seems to be around 6 to 7 stories)

6

Straightup32 t1_j6dob7z wrote

Wel positioning itself isn’t the only issue. It’s reducing the terminal velocity. I can pull my parachute 50 feet before I hit the ground and it will fully expand. But does it have enough time to reduce my terminal velocity? Probably not

5

lefthandedgun t1_j6czwrp wrote

If he was adamant about that, Dr. Garvey is a pompous twit who knows next to nothing about statistics...and everything else merely demonstrates that while they might sometimes survive, cats clearly don't make jumps of such heights safely.

−3

lefthandedgun t1_j6czf7w wrote

That's neither fun, nor fact. Merely oft-parroted internet BS.

0

Straightup32 t1_j6d0jl9 wrote

It is very fun, it is a fact, and it’s not bs. I actually looked it up when I personally saw a cat survive an 8 story drop

1

lefthandedgun t1_j6d1wnv wrote

You can continue to assert it, but it's still misinterpreted, regurgitated junk science, not fact.

−1

Straightup32 t1_j6d22ev wrote

Well I look forward to your dissertation on the matter. Make sure you send me a link after you’ve completed all the necessary cites

1

DasMotorsheep t1_j6d5dc3 wrote

It's quite simple:

This kind of statistic can't prove anything because you're only looking at a certain type of outcome. You're not recording how many cats die on impact.

Example:Say you throw 100 cats out of a 5th story window, and 50 survive without harm, 20 die and 30 get sent to the vet with various degrees of injuries. End result: 100 falls, 30 hospitalizations.

Now you throw 100 cats out of a 15th story window - 20 survive without harm, 70 die and 10 get sent to the vet. End result 100 falls, 10 hospitalizations.

If you only look at "number of total falls vs hospitalizations", it would seem that falls from the 15th story are safer.

It's also quite a strange claim that 4-5 stories high isn't enough time for the cat to prepare itself for impact when they can actually right themselves within like a meter and change of free fall, as countless cat videos on the internet will show.

1

Straightup32 t1_j6dai2l wrote

Well if we want to get technical with it, I said that cats CAN survive from great heights. I think one example is enough to prove that theory correct. “Can” and “do” are wildly different claims.

I’m merely saying that it is possible for a cat to survive, and it is. And it is because of the reasoning I mentioned.

1

DasMotorsheep t1_j6djmbd wrote

Yep, that's all correct, but it's pretty obviously not the part of your comment that the other commenters and I were referring to, which was:

​

>In fact, the most dangerous height they can hurt themselves is between 4-5 stories because it’s high enough for them to get hurt, but not high enough to position themselves.

1

Straightup32 t1_j6dk8iz wrote

Well it’s the truth. Cats can survive those falls by positioning themselves in a way that reduces their terminal velocity.

And the inverse is also true, injuries and death are sustained when the cat can’t position itself to reduce terminal velocity.

The only speculation is the height at which they aren’t able to accurately position themselves and reduce terminal velocity in time before impact.

And in that regard, my speculation and evidence is just as good as yours.

3

DasMotorsheep t1_j6do637 wrote

apart from my speculation and evidence being based in common sense and something that everybody with a cat in their house can reproduce, there is this bit...

​

>in fact, the most dangerous height they can hurt themselves is

emphasis by me

>my speculation

no emphasis needed, I guess.

1

Straightup32 t1_j6dp7fo wrote

Now we are arguing semantics.

“In fact” is just as much a phrase used to tie two points ago as it is a literal declaration of fact.

And if we are going to take things at the literal definition of fact, it’s impossible to obtain any concrete fact from this si auction because it’s just open to so many uncontrollable variables. So the sincere interpretation would have just been that I was using it as a phrase to tie two statements together.

And for the record, it’s not like my speculation is unfounded. There are plenty of statistics and observations that corroborate my speculation.

Edit: and you seem to be missing some key points. One of them being it’s not enough to position itself, it needs time to reduce the current terminal velocity, that’s not instantaneous.

1

DasMotorsheep t1_j6dr9ps wrote

> it’s impossible to obtain any concrete fact from this si auction because it’s just open to so many uncontrollable variables.

Point to you. In the meantime I did some googling on the terminal velocity of cats and how long it takes them to reach it, and found varying statements ranging from 60mph @ 4 stories to 45mph @ 7 stories... So if we go with the extreme of 4 stories and 60mph, it could be reasonable that cats who fall longer would be able to control their fall better and actually reduce their initial terminal velocity that they reached in an uncontrolled fall.
It still sounds a bit extreme to me that a cat would need this long to reach its "ideal falling" position, given how quickly they can actually position themselves in the air during very short falls.

In the end, I guess I have to concede that my speculation and evidence really isn't any better than yours. Anyway. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, have a good one!

2

Straightup32 t1_j6dsjaa wrote

Hey, I always enjoy a good debate! And thank you for keeping it civil as well. You made some great points and really had me challenging my view points without making me defensive! And that’s an amazing quality to have!

2

DasMotorsheep t1_j6f59ez wrote

Gold??? Aww my person, that wouldn't have been necessary. Thanks <3

1

lefthandedgun t1_j6d3je2 wrote

That's not how it works, doofus. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so pony up your proof, and quit conflating "survival" with jumping safely.

0

Straightup32 t1_j6daug2 wrote

This is all the evidence I need to prove my claim.

here

My point was that it’s possible, and it is. You can argue how many are injured, but I said survive. You can argue about how many die, but it only really takes one example to show that it is in fact possible.

But thanks for all of your pompous responses

3