Original story

News item from Compumedia 26.3.2011

Enbody suit malfunction leads to tragic hypothermia death in Swiss Alps

A French tourist wearing a heat-exchanger bodysuit was found dead of hypothermia yesterday in a mountain hut in the Swiss Alps. The tourist, whose name has not been released, was reportedly in the area to watch and report on birds of prey living above the tree-line. The man’s Enbody suit was designed to take in the body’s excess heat and convert it into electrical energy, allowing him to power cameras and communicators. According to early reports from Swiss police, the apparent cause of the accident was a programming fault in the suit. The Enbody interpreted the chilly Alpine hut conditions as tropical heat of around 40oC and removed from the victim’s body so much heat that he died of hypothermia while he slept.

In its advertising, Enbody has claimed that their suits accurately regulate the amount of heat taken out of the body according to the ambient temperature, leaving the wearer warm and comfortable. The manufacturers have expressed their apologies for the incident, but have also observed that the outfits have passed all the stringent trials required by EU’s Testing Authority. “Unfortunately we seem still not to have been able to overcome the possibility of a human error in the manufacturing process”, said a spokesman for Enbody.

Angry French consumer organizations have already called for the immediate suspension of all sales of Enbody suits pending a full inquiry.

Toteuma-arvio 2026

Toteuma lyhyesti

  • Ilmiön toteuma: 2/5
  • Toteuma viiden vuoden tarkkuudella: ei; arviointi-ikkuna on 2006–2016
  • Toteuma väljemmällä aikahorisontilla: vain tutkimuksen ja yksittäisten riskien tasolla
  • Ilmiön ydin: kehon lämpöä aktiivisesti säätelevä älyvaate voi ohjelmisto- tai anturivirheen vuoksi aiheuttaa käyttäjälle fyysisen vaaran.

Lämmitettävissä vaatteissa, puettavissa lääkintälaitteissa ja muissa älytekstiileissä on todellisia ylikuumenemisen ja akun turvallisuusriskejä. Kehon lämpöä voimakkaasti poistavia asuja ei kuitenkaan käytetä niin laajasti, että kuvattu vaaraluokka olisi toteutunut.

Johtopäätös: riskin periaate on tunnistettavissa, mutta varsinainen ilmiö ei ole toteutunut olennaisilta osin.