[QUOTE=Corvidae;862103]And I think the issue that you have to remember is that kids have a much higher surface-area-to-volume ratio than adults do. This means that they will lose heat into the water a lot faster than we will, and might get their core body temperature down to dangerously low levels while we're still feeling "kinda chilly." Also the wetsuit, being thick and dark, will help them absorb heat from the sun a lot faster than bare skin (especially if theyre white) So I dont see a problem with kids in wetsuits. They can get some bare skin sun exposure when theyre done in the water and take the suits off to play in the sand.[/QUOTE]
NorCal I can kind of see it. But like I said, I grew up in Southern California. I went to the beach almost every day in summer. I never wore a wetsuit. My family just couldn't afford it! And while it was very brisk, it didn't kill me, or any of my other friends who went into the water.
For that matter, my swim team used to do swims at 5 AM in an unheated pool at the SC high school, every day of the school week. That said, you tended to warm up FAST because you were swimming, but I can testify that that water was C-O-L-D. And I never got used to it. ;)
I dunno. I just think it's unnecessary. When the water's warm enough, there shouldn't be a need for a wetsuit.
[QUOTE=sires6;860018][url=http://overpopulationisamyth.com/]Overpopulation is a myth |[/url]
Did you know it's not the people that are a problem, quite the opposite (more people have meant better resources and standard of living for everyone). The problem is adequate distribution of resources. There is plenty, getting it to the people who need it from those who have it (us fat Americans) IS the problem...
Of course what we're sending them is not helping either... "How to make an entire world dependent on poor nutrient foods and make malnourishment AND starvation go hand in hand in 6 easy lessons"[/QUOTE]
I'll go with E: Strawman. The problem with that site is it just looks at current numbers without really considering all the other things that are happening with depleting finite resources like oil.
It's not just about food. Even if it were just about food and even if we could theoretically feed everyone with our lands now, we are *also* ruining our farmlands in the long-term for higher short-term yields (which the site seems to applaud for the hey look, more food idea!). Also, it's based on stuff like this: [quote] Thanks to continuing increases in crop yields, the world's farmers are harvesting hundreds of millions of tons more [b]grain[/b] each year on tens of millions acres less land than they did in the 1970s and '80s. For instance, according to USDA figures, the world was producing 1.9 million metric tons of [b]grain[/b] from 579.1 hectares of land (a hectare is 2.47 acres) in 1976. In 2004, we got 3.1 million metric tons of [b]grain[/b] from only 517.9 hectares of land. This is quite a jump.[/quote] I'll point to the highlighted word and point to what forum we're on as to the problem with that paragraph.
Population will decrease by 2045? That's a bit too late.
Edit: Actually I poked around some more. The overpopulationisamyth site claims we'll peak at 2045 at 8 billion people. Latest report is 10 billion by 2100 from the UN. [url]http://esa.un.org/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf[/url] In fact, the 8 billion peak figure is from their *low* projection and is now actually expected to happen in 2050.
So it looks like they're using some old data.
I'm with you Dracil. Also, by allowing us to expand, we, perforce, contract the available land/resources/habitat for even those animals we do not eat. According to some, that's not a problem. Me? I prefer to have things other than humans to interact with . . .
Like I said, I grew up in Orange County but moved 20 years ago. The Boyfriend and I went back a few weeks ago, so we had to go to the beach (of course). I was watching all of the surfers from the pier, and all of a sudden I started pulling on his sleeve like a little kid.
"Look at the surfers! A whole bunch of them are bald or have grey hair!!!"
I was totally thrilled that guys our age were still surfing and not thinking they were too old for it. There's no such thing as "too old"! Okay, maybe when it comes to Daisy Dukes...
I haven't seen the news story yet, just the preview, but I guess there's a shocking story coming up this hour:
"Your favorite snacks might not be as healthy as you think!"
[I]Cue picture of canned peaches in heavy syrup...[/I]
Yeah, I never would have guessed [I]that [/I]one.
Confession: I used to buy canned pears just to drink the syrup.
Gee, I wonder how I ended up so fat.
[QUOTE=Gravyboat;864076]Confession: I used to buy canned pears just to drink the syrup.
Gee, I wonder how I ended up so fat.[/QUOTE]
As a kid, when my lunch contained those little del monte 1 serving cans, drinking the syrup was the best part.
I must've been a freak as a kid. My sisters and I cut a deal that, on jell-o nights, they'd get my jell-o if they gave me their fruit from their jell-o.
I always hated pineapple because I'd only ever had the canned stuff growing up, and so I never tried the fresh stuff because I assumed it would be the same sicky sweet that I couldn't stand. Then we went to India and I ended up trying the real deal because my options were limited on some of the hotel breakfasts (celiac) and I needed to eat, so I gave it a go. Now I am addicted to fresh pineapple--so good!
[QUOTE=ELizabeth826;865226]As a kid, when my lunch contained those little del monte 1 serving cans, drinking the syrup was the best part.[/QUOTE]
Prolly because the fruit in those things are terrible quality, so the syrup is of course better by comparison ;)