User:Lvnbstlfe/sandbox

Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported annually, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medical diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not considered to be).

Aspirated water that reaches the alveoli destroys the pulmonary surfactant. Upon reaching the alveoli, hypotonic liquid found in fresh water dilutes pulmonary surfactant, destroying the substance. Comparatively, aspiration of hypertonic seawater draws liquid from the plasma into the alveoli and similarly causes damage to surfactant and disrupts the alveolar-capillary membrane. Still, there is no clinical difference between salt and freshwater drowning.

Comments
Thanks for posting this. Do you think that there is a way to re-word this so that "recognized" is not used twice in the same sentence? There may be a way to re-phrase this whole piece so it reads little easier. Does the source say that all reported dry drowning victims had a different diagnosis? Is this report just from a certain country? I think that you may be able to start the sentence with "Dry and secondary drowing are not considered to be legitimate medical diagnoses"... what do you think? I have not read your source so you will know this better than me! Remember not to use patients/victims in your actual text. In Wikipedia we usually write the articles referring to "people" (unlike what I just wrote). Your class is doing a great job so far with these proposed edits! JenOttawa (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)