Slashdot Mirror
Being Outside Could Become Deadly In South Asia, Says Study (go.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: Venturing outdoors may become deadly across wide swaths of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh by the end of the century as climate change drives heat and humidity to new extremes, according to a new study. These conditions could affect up to a third of the people living throughout the Indo-Gangetic Plain unless the global community ramps up efforts to rein in climate-warming carbon emissions. Today, that vast region is home to some 1.5 billion people. While most climate studies have been based on temperature projections, this one -- published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances -- is somewhat unique in also considering humidity as well as the body's ability to cool down in response. Most of those at risk in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are poor farmworkers or outdoor construction laborers. They are unlikely to have air conditioners -- up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity. In some areas that have been deforested for industry or agriculture, they may not even have very much shade.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
For the study, the researchers carried out computer simulations using global atmospheric circulation models under two scenarios -- one in which the world comes close to meeting its goal of curbing emissions to limit Earth's average temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels, and one in it continues emitting at current levels. Both scenarios play out dangerously for South Asia. But with no limit on global warming, about 30 percent of the region could see dangerous wet bulb temperatures above 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) on a regular basis within just a few decades. That's nearly half a billion people by today's population levels, though the full scale could change as the population grows. Meanwhile, 4 percent of the population -- or 60 million in today's population -- would face deadly highs at or above 35 degrees C (95 degrees F) by 2100. But if the world can limit global warming, that risk exposure declines drastically. About 2 percent of the population would face average wet bulb temperatures of 31 degrees C (88 degrees F) or higher.
...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
As long as authoritative people call global warming "Just Weather"...
As long as we vote said authoritative people into office...
Our hope lies in education. Lots of it. Regardless of anything.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I met a Russian back packer from Siberia who thought global warming was a great idea.
being outside is a problem in australia
yes the wildlife will kill you
yes the sun will cause cancer
but honestly australia does not have a clue with regards to weather we only have 600 weather stations for an entire continent and apparently we cant calibrate them...
accurate weather stations that people can purchase would be nice...
regards
John Jones
We need to put an end to climate change denial - by environmentalists. Their advocacy of renewables as the only solution to climate change is based on there being just the right amount of climate change. Enough for us to have to abandon fossil fuels, but not enough that we have to do it immediately thereby leaving us enough time to develop renewable technologies.*
The projections are growing more and more dire. Environmentalists need to stop using climate change as a means to advance their renewables agenda, thereby putting the survival of humanity (and a bunch of animal species) at risk. We need to phase out fossil fuels ASAP and switch over to the only power generation technology available which can provide enough base load cheaply enough to satisfy our modern needs - nuclear.
Once we've switched to nuclear and have arrested global warming, then we can work on developing renewables. And as renewables improve in scalability, come down in cost, and battery technology improves allowing us to even out time-variances in renewable production, then we can start using renewables to phase out nuclear plants. Their current tactic of blocking nuclear power, thereby leaving fossil fuels and renewables as our only choices, is literally playing chicken with the survival of the human race. It's like being on a sinking ship but preventing anyone from using the life rafts, insisting that the only solution is that everyone needs to learn how to swim in the short time we have.
*(This is why a lot of climate change deniers don't believe environmentalists about climate change. They figure if environmentalists really believed climate change threatened our existence, they wouldn't be advocating half measures which will take decades to develop and implement. They'd be advocating eliminating fossil fuels immediately, without caring what replaces it short-term as long as it doesn't emit CO2. But since they are opposed to nuclear, climate change deniers logically reason that the environmentalists are lying about climate change.)
In a part of the world that has leeches raining from trees, 400 pound catfish, giant scorpions, spitting cobras, and oh yes, man-eating tigers.........eh, what were we worrying about again?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> ...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
> Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
Contrary to what you think, India knows electricity well, e.g. they are in Top10 worldwide regarding electrified railways, they have a huge 25kV AC based traction network.
Generating more electricity, however causes even more pollution. If you use hydro-carbons, CO2 will be released, further accelerating the AGW.
If you use nuclear, radioactive waste will be created and India already has a health problem, birth defects, etc. due to high radiation background in much of the country. (Scientists says it is caused natually by the ancient, thorium-rich bedrock, while vedic legends say there was an all out nuclear war there about 8000 years ago). Fusion energy is still promised 50 years into the future...
Hydro-electricity isn't very practicable in India, because the mountains are in the northern-most part but the population lives mostly in the southern tip of the vast subcontinent, so transfer losses would be too high even at 750kV AC. Furthermore, the northern region's borders and resources are contested by Pakistan and China and trying to build a dam there would probably ignite warfare.
Wind, I have no idea, but Asia usually experiences extremely strong weather phenomenon never seen in Europe, so one must wonder if those fancy "Made In Germany" fiber laminate wind pylons would topple in a monsoon?
We are entering era when increasingly large parts of our planet will be exploitable only with special suits and vehicles, like if Earth we know begin slowly morphing towards Mars. I don't think there is hope for changing direction. Our brains, especially considering average human brain, is simply not built to handle this type of problems, simply because evolution never needed us to care about such things. People of the World will not elect Al Gore and politicians like him, except maybe in Europe. General public cannot process information of this scale and complexity to understand what is going on.
839*929
While I definitely agree climate change, especially in this region, is a major problem, I think their definition of "deadly" is a little off the mark. I spent several weeks in India in April, when the temperatures routinely topped 40C(104F) and occasionally reached 45C (113F). It was clear the locals found it hot, but it didn't seem to affect the frenetic pace of commerce in the cities I visited. Then again, that was pre-monsoon, so the humidity wasn't as high.
You can only survive those temperatures if relative humidity is below 100%. At 100% relative humidity, even 36-37C is in fact deadly, because the body has no way of dissipating excess heat, and eventually you die of a heart attack.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
At around 35C wet bulb people will die, perspiration won't be able to carry away any heat. It won't even matter if you're in a shade.
Comparison with cold weather is off the mark. To survive cold you simply need to slow down heat exchange by wearing enough insulation (=warm clothes). There's nothing comparable for the heat, except air conditioning.
From WP's Wet-bulb_temperature page:
Just temperature alone doesn't give the complete picture when it comes to risk. That's why TFA was specifically about wet-bulb temperatures, because when they're exceeded then you can't just "put up and endure it". You die if you have no artificial means of cooling yourself, as the body's only significant temperature reduction mechanism stops working, and that's not survivable for long.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
More like "Don't worry it's India, who gives a shit?" Well apart from the Indians shitting all over the place, obviously.
I think you are confusing climate with weather
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
A wet bulb temperature of 36-37C isn't just deadly, it's rapidly deadly. Your core body temperature will be at least 2C above your skin temperature which cannot be below the wet bulb temperature.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
That's the general attitude here. On /., and the west in general. Who gives half a fuck about Indians? There's so many of them anyway, a few million of them dying, so what? I got my air condition, I got my office job, why should I not continue driving my SUV just so some Indian pariah can survive?
Welcome to the wonderful Christian world of compassion. You may vomit now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, like Panama then?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
To a theater near you. Which kind of sums it up, really.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
But... but.... everyone is going to DIE! We need your money NOW! How can you hate the environment so much?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What has me even more concerned than this study is not that 1.5 billion people may find themselves living in an inhospitable region, but the reaction people will have to it. Will they just roll over and die by the hundreds of millions? Somehow adapt using new training, technology, and wealth they don't have today? Perhaps they might simply start a war over the fact they can't live within thier sovereign territory and feel they need others resources to live? Several of these countries have nuclear weapons and many aren't super stable on a good day. Its not far fetched that the consequences of resource wars could be far more severe than the actual climate differences itself.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
My god man -
"Consensus"?!
"Experts"!?
That's NOT SCIENCE nor is it even rationality or based on reason.
There were plenty of "experts" in the "science" of phrenology. Didn't make it accurate or real.
There were and are plenty of "experts" in the "science" of astrology. Doesn't make it accurate or real.
There were and are plenty of "experts" with lots of valid "consensus" that ulcers were caused by stress and acid. Turns our that wasn't real or all.
The stock market will never go greater than 20,000
We've reached peak oil and oil production will drop off
bla-bla-bla
His quote is completely and totally accurate and you've proved it for him
"Lots of people seem to think that humanity is facing some sort of crisis of selfishness. I tend to feel that humanity is facing a crisis of intellectual integrity. People just cannot stand that someone with a different view might actually be right."
At our present growth rate (about 2.3% a year?), even with 100% 'clean' energy, we will generate enough heat to boil off (ok, vaporize) the oceans in about 400 years.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
> ...up to 25 percent in of India's population still has no access to electricity.
> Fix this issue and your problem will be solved.
...Generating more electricity, however causes even more pollution...
Not if you do it with solar.
> Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Based on a history of developed countries experience that probably has only 2 decades worth of relevant data for material that can take 1000 years to decay to a low health risk.
While I am a proponent of nuclear power (even if it requires subsidization on the national level), I would not be a proponent for it based on the current state of technology (designed in the 1960's). Nuclear waste management is an indispensable requirement, and most nations do not have a remotely credible one. Also, future nuclear reactors need to be based on technologies like thorium, and "meltdown proof", both which are in technological reach.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Also, Greenland would be quite nice.. and it's largely uninhabited.
Once the ice pack melts, Greenland will be largely underwater. Much of the actual land is below sea level.
No, it isn't. Greenland is way above sea level. Where do you get your information from?
Here's a nice set of maps of the shorelines if all the ice caps melted, for what it's worth: http://www.nationalgeographic.... Greenland is almost unaffected.
Isn't that where emissions are increasing the fastest? India is #3 or 4 on the list of polluters, neighboring China is #1. India is expected to surpass the emissions of the entire EU by 2020, and their recent increases canceled out decreases in the US and China. India is already making it's air unbreathable, maybe they should stop before it also cooks them.
Nuclear does not solve climate change. For every kWh produced, nuclear puts two kWh worth of water vapor, which is a "greenhouse gas", in the atmosphere.
That makes no sense. First, you can't measure water vapor in kWh. Second, although water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas, water vapor in the atmosphere equilibrates on a time scale of days: it's called "rain".
You are right about nuclear having other problems, which may or may not be addressable. One problem is that current technologies won't solve the problem: in the long term, you'll either need to start up breeder reactors to produce enough fuel (something people don't want to do, because of weapons-potential), or switch to a new and unproven cycle such as thorium.
Probably doable. The problems are technically solvable. But whether they're politically and socially and economically solvable, I don't know.
and oh yes, man-eating tigers.....
Not very many of them left. Tiger population of the world, outside zoos, is under 4,000.
http://tigerpopulation.weebly.com/uploads/3/7/7/8/37787381/1412938552.png
according to the POTUS.
Also according to the consensus right here yesterday. Coal and natural gas is all we need.
Hate to break it to ya, but radiative material with a half-life of 1000 years isnt very dangerous.
Its the stuff with much shorter half lives that are dangerous.
"His name was James Damore."
You have some basic facts and you've drawn some basic conclusions... then you've made the mistake of thinking you know enough that you have an accurate idea of how climate and climate cycles work and can judge mankind's relative influence.
The good news is, with that level of ignorance you have plenty of room in your brain to handle learning new things should you choose to do so.
Radioactive waste does not cause any health problems whatsoever if it is stored properly
Point to the radioactive waste that is being stored properly.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Transmission line losses for 1 GW over 1000 miles at 765 kV range from 5% to 11% (extrapolated from wikipedia).
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
History says you're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Absolutely! Solar cells virtually rain down upon us, we need only collect them each morning and *poof*, electricity!
Imagine having to manufacture them, the odd chemicals, by-products and waste, and the rare earths etc used for interconnects and circuitry to control them. THAT would be a monumental environmental disaster.
And yet they make smartphones that are just terrible for the environment. Stupid gits.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
While your reasoning is of course correct (higher half life translates into a lower intensity of radiation).
It doesn't mean, however, that radioactive wase doesn't remain dangerous for more than 1000 years. I think nobody in the nuclear industry (not even the proponants) would deny that. Look e.g. to answer on question 4 on this pro nuclar power website where they admit that it takes 1000-10000 years for nuclear waste to become sufficiently safe. link
Why talk about how horrible the end of the century is going to be in Asia climate-wise while we still cannot predict the weather for the weekend?
It turns out to be much easier to predict the average temperature over a large area for a long term than the instantaneous temperature at a single location at a single time.
I can tell you the average height of American males with pretty good confidence (177 cm)-- but I can only guess how tall you are, and with a very high error.
If you fix the issue of 25% of Indians not have electricity, you've just increased global warming a few more degrees by making them contributors.
Unless you fix it with renewables, in which case they will contribute less because right now they're burning anything they can lay hands on.
Absolutely.
The pollution levels in central India are absolutely appalling, and they are appalling precisely because the people are so poor
How are climate change activists preventing Indians from accessing cheap energy?
They aren't, of course. Cheap energy in rural India is now being addressed by low cost solar arrays, which is something climate change activists like.
This isn't actually a result of climate change activism, but in fact a result of an earlier crisis: the current generation of low-cost solar panels is a direct result of the Low Cost Solar Array project, originally started in response to the 1970s Energy Crisis (actually an oil crisis).
The duration matters... you can place your palm on a hot grill without being burned if you're quick.
Maricopa county, Arizona. Just happens in May. telling us it's not the same is almost reasonable. Almost.
And yes, the humidity also come there, for similar reasons.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The worst you'll find in the entire US is gonna be around 81F wet bulb temperature, or around 27C, and that's at a yearly occurrence rate of 0.4%. TFA is on another level entirely from that.
Absolutely! Solar cells virtually rain down upon us, we need only collect them each morning and *poof*, electricity!
There are, of course, a large number of solar panel manufacturers in India, and solar has supplied a significant amount of the electrical growth in India. I'm not sure if you're clueless, or just pretending to be clueless.
You might start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
and then try http://www.greenworldinvestor.... http://www.wlivenews.com/top-1... https://www.bijlibachao.com/so...
Imagine having to manufacture them, the odd chemicals, by-products and waste, and the rare earths etc used for interconnects and circuitry to control them. THAT would be a monumental environmental disaster.
There have been a large number of people recently claiming that solar panel manufacture is an environmental nightmare, but as far as I can tell, none of these actually know anything about solar panel manufacture.
A good way to tell who is clueless and who isn't is to see whether they're claiming solar panels use rare earth metals. (They don't.)
Half a bonus point for at least saying that it's the "interconnects and circuitry to control them" that use rare earths. These don't either, but at least you have enough of a clue to know that solar panels don't use rare earths, so you know enough to be flailing around.
That's NOT SCIENCE nor is it even rationality or based on reason.
Someone doesn't know what empiricism means.
That actually sums up quite a lot about your post, actually.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Source: The Lancet
Summary: Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.
Around 7.71% of all deaths were caused by non-optimal temperatures, with substantial differences between countries, ranging from around 3% in Thailand, Brazil, and Sweden to about 11% in China, Italy, and Japan. Cold was responsible for the majority of these deaths (7.29% of all deaths), while just 0.42% of all deaths were attributable to heat.
The study also found that extreme temperatures were responsible for less than 1% of all deaths, while mildly sub-optimal temperatures accounted for around 7% of all deaths -- with most (6.66% of all deaths) related to moderate cold.
where being outside is deadly, one man stood up...
If all the ice caps and glaciers melt, expect sea level to rise about 61 meters. Yes, this has a big effect on coastal areas and atoll islands. But the actual loss of land surface area represented is small, something on the order of 10% of surface area is flooded, but then again, a lot of Greenland and Antarctica would no longer be covered in ice so we have some usable surface area gained. The net loss is a few percent of the current surface area.
It's not like the earth will become Waterworld even if all the ice melts.
There's plenty of sites that can show you maps based on sea-level, and they include "what if all ice caps and glaciers melt" among the different views.
Undoing moderation to correct the physiology error in your post. Not a heart attack. Elevated core temperature manifests acutely with seizures and coma (that's why it's called heat 'stroke'). If core temperature goes up more slowly the toxicity is renal failure from breakdown of muscle proteins (rhabdomyolysis), which destroy the renal tubular system. There is a mechanism for myocardial ischemia related to increased blood viscosity, but this is not typical.
Time to start working on those domed cities I read about in the fancy manga magazines.. May as well start up the Academy of Law to start training the street judges needed to police these mega domed cities.
This is an informal fallacy called tue quoque, or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. If these people could themselves solve this problem then hypocrisy would be a valid argument. Since this is not the case it's simply a baseless personal attack.
But it's really not necessary to listen to others on the subject. The science is pretty accessible. Arrhenius 1896 lays out the basics, and it should be readable by anyone with a high school education. Equally instructive are the reasons why it was considered disproven for 50 years. Or are you somehow unaware that this issue was discovered by scientists over a hundred years ago instead of by recent celebrities?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
That's not what that link says. Look, we're a pretty savvy group here, all right? If the experts are all saying one thing, it's probably not a great idea to assume that you know better.
What your link specifically says is that it takes 1-10k years for the high-level waste to reach radiation levels on par with the original ore. This says nothing about safe radiation levels, and there isn't any particularly good definition for what is "safe" to begin with. There are multiple different types of radiation and different hazards depending on the exact type. Alpha emitters can typically be safely handled, but if ingested are quite dangerous. The biological models for radiation are a subject of current research, and in particular the linear no-threshold model is probably on its way out the door. Generally speaking "safe" is not well defined, certainly not as a blanket statement about all nuclear waste. And again, the more dangerous it is, the less time it will be a problem. Waste storage facilities tend to be massively over-engineered; the actual health risks of the waste decline pretty rapidly.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
... this would solve the outsourcing to India problem. Not the most elegant way, what with the death and all...
We will all die sooner or later, so why not make it painless and quick?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
DC or AC?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
This looks really good, tbh.
I'm interested in seeing how Elon Musk's solar powered batteries turn out. If they work well (and cheaply enough) then suddenly solar becomes a viable alternative to nuclear.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So you mean that a nuke in yellowstone may solve the.problem?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
If the tropical places don't want to get hot, perhaps they shouldn't cut down the forests that locally regulate temperature and humidity.
Besides, I welcome some warming as it's quite cold for nine months of the year where I live. Might be nice to not have to wear gloves, hats and a scarf for a change.
Lol, if you say so doc
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The temperature rising 3 degrees on average, across the globe, results in the icecaps melting AND half the people in India dying of heat stroke? The Earth's energy increase just 0.6% results in catastrophe?
A) The Goldilocks Zone we found ourselves in was much smaller than we ever thought. The possibility of finding alien life now seems minuscule.
B) Those glaciers at the north pole must of been more slush than ice all these years.
C) Luckily, we have two generations to begin adapting. Do you really expect the craptastic shanty towns housing people in India will be around in 100yrs? I don't expect most of the crappy McMansions everybody struggles for in the US to be around.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Cloud-Destroying Nanites. Try to keep up.
Last I heard he still good not provide his data. The judge send to be giving him plenty of time.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Cut the population and you cut emissions
Well what do you know?
I still haven't run out of copy/paste NOR has the reality abruptly changed to fit delusions of pathetic creatures who can't face facts.
How's them mod points working for ya, snowflake? Still downmodding facts and arguments you can't accept?
Aaaaw...
Anyways... as I was saying above to that CUNT who's accusing people promoting renewables of genocide...
Those hundreds of thousands you mention have NO energy, if by energy you mean electricity.
Nor the means to get it. There is no electric grid in most those places. Nor will there be as long as there's money in stealing copper cables.
And guess what?
Those "douche bag westerns preaching about global warming" are actually a part of the solution.
Cause all that preaching is the reason why western governments have pumped in billions of dollars into renewable energy (and continue to do so), increasing production and lowering prices of solar and wind power (particularly solar) - thus creating conditions for all those hundreds of thousands you clearly care sooooo much for to get electricity for the first time.
Electricity from renewable sources, that is.
Which is not only cleaner now, thanks in part to those "western douche bags", it is also cheaper than the same electricity from coal.
Which kinda makes you a part of the problem, doesn't it?
So... how does it feel to be "actively killing real people right now"? Does it get your limp dick hard enough to see it?
Without a microscope?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I note the use of "could become" in the headline. Before I jump into the deep end in response to this latest dire hysterical warning, can someone please list all the accurate warmer predictions from the last decade? Preferably someone who has actually spent a summer working outside in the Earth's tropical (or even near-tropical) zone, and not someone who spends all his time in air conditioned comfort in front of a computer display.
"that caused average global temperatures to drop by 0.4-0.7 Celsius"
Last I heard, greenhouse effect warming was past 0.7 and still going, and lasts more than a year, so while we can argue about "much", I'd say "smaller" is pretty much a lock until we find a bigger volcano to set off (at which point we'll have a different large problem).
PS - I don't recall writing that the case has been abandoned. The court records don't show any update since February. And the judge didn't seem in any hurry to address this further. From the last updates, it appears the ball is Mr. Mann's court, so to speak, as he had been ordered to produce his research data or face losing his case for defamation. That's painfully easy to figure out.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Thank you, especially for mentioning rhabdomyolysis - I didn't think it would happen due to elevated temperatures in the 36, 37C range, though of course it does make sense.
Much appreciated.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Asking WHY is a taboo in Politics/Army/Corporations/Schools/Colleges
Casteism
Uncivilized Caste system http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
Casteism
Man, there was a lot of argument on this. Yes, wet-bulb and dry-bulb are different, which is why I referenced the relative humidity. NOAA has a handy calculator
... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.