Urgent beach warning as two Brits poisoned on UK island & rushed to A&E after eating dangerous plant with NO antidote
The pair has eaten a plant that contained a poison with no antidote available.
3
3
3
Emergency services rushed an island off the coast of Wales on May 3 after reports of a couple who had been poisoned.
The Brits, who were on Sully Island off the Vale of Glamorgan, were thought to have ingested Hemlock - a highly poisonous plant.
Sully Island is a small, uninhabited island near Barry and is about 450 metres long.
The island is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest, home to plenty of diverse and rare plants.
It offers stunning views of the Welsh coastline and no permanent population, which meant rescue had to come from elsewhere.
The RNLI's inshore lifeboats (ILBs) were deployed from Barry Dock to the eastern side of the tidal island.
The rescue charity said: "Barry Dock RNLI's inshore lifeboat was tasked by HM Coastguard on Saturday, May 3, to locate, assess, and medevac two casualties on Sully Island reported to have potentially ingested hemlock.
"The volunteer crew were advised the casualties, experienced foragers, were on the eastern beach and were located quickly.
"On arrival the casualties were showing signs of anxiety so the crew immediately fitted them with lifejackets and embarked both onto the ILB for immediate transport to the mainland."
Hemlock, also known as hemlock water-dropwort and hemlock root, is common in shallow water and appears like a cluster of white flowers.
Urgent warning over deadly plant worse than Japanese Knotweed... do you have it near you
It's often found near rivers or fresh water but can be washed up on beaches after storms.
Beachgoers in Britain have been warned keep their pooches on a lead as a precautionary measure in certain spots, with four dogs having died from the plant in the Newquay, Cornwall.
Thankfully for the foragers, the RNLI confirmed that after the rescue, the pair on Sully Island made a full recovery.
They said: 'Once ashore they were handed to Barry coastguard rescue team (CRT) who identified elevated pulse rates.
"Oxygen was prepared from the ILB's supply with an RNLI crew member staying to assist the CRT with care.
'The officer in charge remained in contact with the ambulance service while the crew monitored the casualties.
"As the tide fell the ILB could not remain on scene so with their condition stable and a plan in place Barry Dock ILB stood down returned to station and was made ready for service while the casualties were taken to A&E.'
SYMPTOMS OF HEMLOCK POISONING
Hemlock poisoning will show symptoms after around 30 minutes, or up to 3 hours.
The plant can cause a painful rash or burning on the eyes if touched.
Ingesting any part of the plant can lead to poisoning which can lead to respiratory failure.
Symptoms include:
Trembling
Burning sensation in digestive tract
Increased salivation
Dilated pupils
Muscle pain and weakness
Decreased heart rate
Loss of speech
Convulsions
Unconsciousness
If you believe you have symptoms, you should seek medical attention immediately.
If possible, take a sample of the plant if it's safe do to so by using plastic gloves - or take photos.
Do not try and make the infected throw up.
What Are Hemlock Roots?
Hemlock Roots may look like a "beautiful" flower, but they hold a deadly secret.
The plant, which looks like a parsnip, could be lethal to humans and animals.
Hemlock could easily kill if it was eaten as it contains fatal toxins.
The toxins grow naturally and include coniine and a gamma-coniceine, which cause muscular paralysis.
Anyone who ingests the harmful plant could end up with respiratory failure - which could lead to death.
Only a tiny amount of Hemlock can prove fatal to a human or to livestock.
It usually grows in wet, marshy places and is often confused for its non-poisonous lookalikes such as wild carrots or parsnips.
If accidentally eaten, symptoms of poisoning include seizures, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, tremors, confusion, weakness or dizziness.
The plant was previously found on a beach in Cornwall following a storm.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Being stalked raises women's risk of heart disease
Stalking raises the risk of heart disease for women and should be added to risk factors alongside smoking and bad diet, scientists have warned. Harvard University discovered that women who were stalked were 41 per cent more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease, which can cause heart attacks and strokes. For those forced to obtain a restraining order, the risk rose to 70 per cent. One in five women and one in 11 men have been a victim of stalking, according to data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales. Although stalking is known to cause fear and trigger mental health problems, the new study is the first to show it has an impact on heart health. 'To many people, stalking doesn't seem to be such a serious experience, as it often does not involve physical contact. But stalking has profound psychological consequences that can have physical implications,' said senior author Dr Karestan Koenen, professor of psychiatric epidemiology at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'Our study highlights that these preventable, common, non-contact forms of violence against women are health hazards and need to be considered as such, just like we consider smoking or poor diet.' Stalking is defined as linked incidents causing distress, fear or alarm, which can involve obscene, threatening unwanted letters, text messages or phone calls, being watched or followed or having people loiter near to the home or workplace. The crime survey estimated there were more than 129,000 stalking offences last year. For the new study researchers looked at the cardiovascular outcomes for 66,270 women, aged between 36 and 56 who were enroled in the Nurses' Health Study II between 2001 and 2021. Around 12 per cent reported that they had been stalked while just over five per cent said they had obtained a restraining order. Researchers found a clear link between cardiovascular disease and stalking. Women whose medical records confirmed heart attacks or strokes were more likely to have reported being stalked or obtaining a restraining order. Experts believe stalking may cause psychological distress, which can disrupt the nervous system, impair proper blood vessel function, and negatively affect other biological mechanisms. Many stressful life experiences are known to increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, such as the loss of a loved one or bankruptcy, but it is the first research to link it to stalking. Dr Rebecca Lawn, a research associate in epidemiology at Harvard, said: 'Stalking is often seen as a form of violence that does not involve physical contact, which may make it seem less serious. 'However, our findings suggest stalking should not be minimised. Stalking can be chronic, and women often report making significant changes in response such as moving. 'Perhaps because it is our nature to re-think about things that happen to us, making us experience the situation over and over.' Dr Harmony Reynolds, former chair of American Heart Association's Clinical Cardiology & Stroke Women's Health Science Committee, added: 'While this study shows a more moderate risk, given the long-time frame, it highlights how feeling unsafe can affect the body, in addition to the mind.' The research was published in the journal Circulation.
Telegraph
8 hours ago
- Telegraph
The three reasons to doubt Letby convictions over attempted baby deaths
When Lucy Letby was questioned during her trial about how two babies came to have dangerously low blood sugar, even she accepted that they must have been poisoned with insulin. Blood test results appeared to show the insulin levels in the babies were not natural, suggesting the hormone could only have been administered externally. Now experts are casting doubt not only on whether Letby was guilty, but whether extra insulin was ever given to the babies at all. Prof Geoff Chase and Helen Shannon, a chemical engineer, have written an extensive 173-page report for Letby's defence team, which has been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body that examines potential miscarriages of justice. 'I am happy to show up in court, or to the CCRC, or the Crown Prosecution Service, and go through it with them line-by-line,' said Prof Chase, a specialist in insulin delivery to critically ill adults and neonates, and author of over 650 journal articles, from the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. Here, they set out their arguments to The Telegraph. The missing insulin Letby was convicted of injecting insulin into the feed bags of two babies known as Child F and Child L at the Countess of Chester Hospital in 2015 and 2016. Both had suffered alarming crashes in blood sugar, and medical staff were sufficiently concerned to send blood samples to a laboratory in Liverpool for analysis. The lab flagged an anomaly in both cases. When the body creates insulin naturally, it also produces the same amount of a second hormone, called c-peptide, which breaks down at an equal rate. Because insulin leaves the body much faster than c-peptide, there should have been far less of it – but in the case of Child F, the lab found the reverse. Tests showed high insulin but low c-peptide. Child L also had relatively high insulin levels, and both cases suggested extra insulin had been administered accidentally or, as the prosecution would claim, maliciously. Both babies recovered before the tests returned, so the hospital filed away the reports, which were not found until detectives began hunting for evidence and noticed that the incidents coincided with Letby's shift patterns. During Letby's trial, Prof Peter Hindmarsh, an endocrinologist from University College London (UCL), calculated that just a drop (0.6ml) of insulin needed to be added to feed bags to cause the crashes. But Prof Chase and Ms Shannon disagree. According to them, it would require at least 10 times as much (6ml) to produce the same effect – nearly two thirds of a vial of insulin. This is because insulin is 'sticky', holding on to surfaces rather than being pumped into the body. They calculate it could even require up to six to seven vials, which would have been noticed by hospital staff. Yet no insulin was ever found to be missing. 'Insulin sticks, or technically adsorbs, to many surfaces and particularly plastics used in the bags delivering nutrition as well as the lines and cannulas,' said Ms Shannon. 'The trial stated no insulin was missing and it would require only a very small drop. If injected intravenously yes, this is true, but with adsorption, or sticking, it would require between 1.2 teaspoons to six to seven vials. 'Simply, there was no possibility to commit insulin poisoning as hypothesised in court.' Letby's trial heard that just three vials of insulin were issued to the neo-natal unit in 2014, six vials in 2015 and two vials in 2016 and were kept in a locked fridge in an equipment room. Prof Chase added: 'If no insulin is missing, there is no way to commit that crime. Insulin sticking to lines, bags, tubes is a known thing and it can significantly impact, for example, insulin pump use among small children. The lack of missing insulin is the true smoking gun in this case.' The problem with antibodies Even if there was no missing insulin, it still does not explain why the lab readings for Child F and Child L looked so worrying. At Letby's trial, Dr Anna Milan, a biochemist at the Liverpool lab, told the court that 'the only way you can get a pattern like that is if there's insulin [that has] been given to a patient'. Prof Chase and Ms Shannon dispute this. They argue that babies are often born with antibodies that bind with insulin, effectively storing the hormone in the body for much longer than normal, and raising levels 'beyond expectation'. Studies have shown that between three and 97 per cent of preterm infants are born with such antibodies, and it is even more likely if they have been exposed to infections and some antibiotics. In the case of the Letby babies, both had been treated with antibiotics for suspected sepsis, and the neo-natal unit had been struggling to get rid of a bacterium – Pseudomonas aeruginosa – which had colonised taps. The unit was also having a problem with sewage leaking from pipes in the ceiling, and had been forced to put nappy pads in the roof cavity to soak up the waste. The risk of infection in the unit was high. 'When a neonate or its mother is exposed to infective agents, or certain antibiotics, insulin levels can be sky high,' Prof Chase added. 'When an insulin antibody binds to insulin, what happens is it stays in the blood, and it stores it, and it'll stay there for days, to weeks, to months. In one published case study it took a year for bound insulin to disappear.' The antibody problem is well known, and the lab should have sent the sample away for further testing but that never happened. 'If you go to a variety of online NHS guidelines around insulin and c-peptide testing they will tell you that if you get a very high insulin rating, you should test again, and they'll also tell you to test for antibodies,' said Prof Chase. 'But that was never done because [the result] wasn't important to people at the time.' An NHS guidance note from the Liverpool lab warned that the Roche assay used could not determine whether insulin had been artificially administered and advised sending it to a forensic lab But samples were never checked by forensic experts and the defence was not able to re-test the blood. It had already been thrown away. Preterm anomalies The prosecution's case was that the high levels of insulin and low c-peptide indicated foul play. In the trial, it was stated that a healthy insulin to c-peptide ratio should be between 1:10 and 1:20. In other words, there should be 10 to 20 times more c-peptide than insulin. In the case of Child F, that ratio was flipped, with insulin levels of 4,657 and a very low c-peptide level of less than 169. But Prof Chase and Ms Shannon said the trial experts were relying on data from older children or adults, and that newborn and preterm babies often have strikingly different hormone ratios. In fact, the c-peptide levels for all the infants were well within reported ranges for neonates in published studies. One paper, which looked at 76 sets of assays from preterm infants, showed more than over 40 per cent had hormone levels that were equal or even reversed, with insulin higher than c-peptide. And their new modelling showed that when antibody binding was added into the mix, insulin levels could rise up to 10,000. Prof Chase said: 'Normally insulin and c-peptide come out in equal amounts. C-peptide goes up into a bucket with one hole, insulin goes into a bucket with three holes. 'But if insulin also binds with antibodies and goes into a bucket with no holes, the relative levels can change and measured insulin levels build up over time. And once you have antibodies, you can get almost any number you want in relatively short order.' Ms Shannon added: 'If you've got these infective agents in the mix, and when you've got insulin binding reactions going on, virtually any neonate would react in the way these neonates did.' 'Critically, the Roche assay used measures this bound insulin, which is why retesting for antibodies or more specific tests are required to determine insulin poisoning.' The pair also argue that it is not uncommon for preterm babies to develop low blood sugar, particularly if they are critically ill. Research shows that around one in three such infants suffer very low blood glucose levels and up to half are not responsive to glucose. 'No way to prove a crime occurred' Even during the trial opening, Nicholas Johnson KC admitted the insulin anomalies were originally 'attributed to a naturally occurring phenomenon'. Ms Shannon added: 'There is no way to prove a crime occurred and there is ample evidence to suggest non-malicious interpretation of the assay results.' The assays themselves are also not foolproof, with up to four per cent giving misleading or unreliable results. The lab that tested the samples underwent an assessment a few weeks after Child L's test, which found it exaggerated the level of insulin in a quality control sample by almost 800 per cent. Prof Chase added: 'None of this is hard to find. But seemingly it didn't cross anyone's minds to check with 15 life sentences on the line.' The police and Crown Prosecution Service said there was a wealth of evidence, and testimony from medical experts, to convict Letby, and are considering bringing new charges against the nurse. The Liverpool lab is also standing by its findings. Meanwhile, the CCRC is deciding whether to send Letby's case back to the Court of Appeal, with a decision expected before Christmas.
Sky News
10 hours ago
- Sky News
Over 70s face driving ban if they fail new compulsorily eye tests
Over 70s could be made to take compulsory eye tests every three years - and will be banned from driving if they fail, it is understood. Ministers are said to be considering "tougher" measures to tackle road deaths and injuries in England and Wales, which they believe have "remained stubbornly high under successive Conservative governments". Under the new proposals, first reported by The Times, the drink-drive limit would be lowered to match the current rules in Scotland. Currently, the drink-drive limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath in England and Wales, or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. But this is expected to be lowered to 22 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath or 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, to match the stricter levels already enforced in Scotland. Those caught not wearing a seatbelt could also receive penalty points for the first time, while drivers found on the road without insurance could also face more severe consequences. As well as this, plans are currently being drawn up to make those aged 70 or over take a compulsory eye test every three years when they renew their driving licence. Those who fail this would lose their right to drive under the proposals. It's understood that tests for other conditions, such as dementia, are also being considered. The measures are expected to be unveiled by Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, in a new road safety strategy due to be published in the autumn, it is understood. A Labour source said: "At the end of the last Labour government, the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads was at a record low, but numbers have remained stubbornly high under successive Conservative governments. "In no other circumstance would we accept 1,600 people dying, with thousands more seriously injured, costing the NHS more than £2bn per year. "This Labour government will deliver the first Road Safety Strategy in a decade, imposing tougher penalties on those breaking the law, protecting road users and restoring order to our roads." It comes after 1,633 people died in road traffic accidents in 2024, with nearly 28,000 victims seriously injured.
