this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2024
1230 points (92.4% liked)

Science Memes

11138 readers
3559 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] overcast5348@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can't be explained by how dangerous they each are.

Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).

To me, with absolutely no data, it feels lie:

  • 0F is as dangerous as 140F (you're long dead if you're outside in both cases)
  • 100F is as dangerous as 40F (mildly uncomfortable but safe for a while)

So calling 0F and 100F both "really dangerous" and using that to justify them being the respective points of 0 and 100 disingenuous. Like, use Fahrenheit if that's what you're used to - I use it too because that's what I'm used to. But I don't explain the insane system with "it's because the two ends are reallllly dangerous."

I’m saying that 0F is waaaaaaay more dangerous than 100F so the logic of those particular temperatures being the 0-100 ends of the scale can’t be explained by how dangerous they each are.

idk about that though, i mean maybe if you go outside completely naked, sure. But idk who would be doing that. I've regularly been outside in close to 0f temperature in lighter clothing, it's not pleasant, but im not going to freeze to death within twenty minutes. Plus you can also do physical activity, and as long as you regulate sweat, you'll be fine. Although sweat can be particularly dangerous in colder weather.

Almost everyone would be fine staying outside for 30 minutes at 100F without no external help (shade, cool drinks etc). Almost nobody would be fine after staying outside at 0F without external help (parka, thermals etc).

i think that's unreasonable though, you just wouldn't be going outside at all in those clothes, in the same way that you wouldn't go outside in 100f weather in a full winter get up. You would literally die.

140f as a relative measure is wild to me, in 140f if you're outside without an air conditioned vehicle (death valley) and you don't have water you will die within about a day. 100-130f is considered "extreme heat" in death valley, which has a website that you can pull up for some relevant information. Once your body is over about 110f internal temperature, you're fucking dead. Unless you have a way to either redirect sunlight from hitting you, and water to replenish that lost from sweat, you die really quickly.

0f isn't considered "extreme cold" that would be something like -40c (or f, they're the same) where basically everything starts to freeze, and i've seen people do overnight camping in that weather. It's perfectly doable, obviously not without gear, but who isn't bringing gear? Hell you can bring a space blanket with you, with the right gear you can easily exist in 0f weather for a prolonged period.

I'm not sure where you're quoting the "really dangerous" from because i just said both of them are "really hot/cold"

But I don’t explain the insane system with “it’s because the two ends are reallllly dangerous.”

did i say this anywhere??? I feel like i'm schizophrenic.