Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm pretty sure it would be a lot easier on the body to live in 110 degree weather, than it would to spend well over half your time (cause steel mills had long, long hours) in 150+ degrees in non-breathable acid suits, long thermal underwear under their clothing, gloves (for welders), respirators, heat-tempered hard hats and work boots. 40 degrees is a pretty big difference.

But, maybe I'm just being silly.

My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt, the heat stroke death numbers that I have seen personally never mention how many of these people have exacerbations of chronic illnesses, advanced age, severe dehydration from hangovers, drugs, or considering Mountain Dew by the case a good way to hydrate in extreme heat (ie, people who live morbidly unhealthy lifestyles).

Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat. If you do happen to be one of the aforementioned people and the heat may kill you, move your to the north.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt

Actually that wasn't your point, and if it was, you made it poorly. There is a difference between passing through an area and living in it, and even than people still have died going through them, not becuase they didn't adapt, but becuase they are harsh areas that we not designed to survive in w/o modification. We didn't develop these things purely for comforts sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.

So how do you explain the people who died in dangerous environments that never had any of those things? If you take someone who has never had McDonald's and drop them into the middle of the Sahara, the bottom of the Ocean, or the Badlands the odds they will survive has nothing to do with never eating fast food. You seem to overestimate how humans adapt while underestimating the harshness of nature.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.

And yet, professional athletes have died in far tamer conditions.

dogma wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.

And yet, professional athletes have died in far tamer conditions.

Certainly one footballer in the uk died of a heart attack on the pitch, don't know much about it not a football person, also there are the ones who live healthy life styles but still get these chronic illnesses, unhealthy lifestyles only make the chance worse.

Ahtman wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:My point is that it is entirely survivable and people without A/C in these conditions will adapt

Actually that wasn't your point, and if it was, you made it poorly. There is a difference between passing through an area and living in it, and even than people still have died going through them, not becuase they didn't adapt, but becuase they are harsh areas that we not designed to survive in w/o modification. We didn't develop these things purely for comforts sake.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just read the numbers in Curtis's post and it seems that when you smoke/drink/live off McD's your whole life your body cannot handle extreme heat.

Just because YOU do not understand my point doesn't make it poor, or wrong. If the southwest is so unlivable how do you explain the 70 some Native American tribes I found from that area in a cursory glance on the internet?

I believe Mexico has been inhabited for a while too with the same climate, and lots of people without access to A/C

So how do you explain the people who died in dangerous environments that never had any of those things? If you take someone who has never had McDonald's and drop them into the middle of the Sahara, the bottom of the Ocean, or the Badlands the odds they will survive has nothing to do with never eating fast food. You seem to overestimate how humans adapt while underestimating the harshness of nature.

I think there is a bit of difference between being dropped into the middle of the desert/ocean/mars/whatever and dealing with the heat in an area with shade, running water and such.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:
I think there is a bit of difference between being dropped into the middle of the desert/ocean/mars/whatever and dealing with the heat in an area with shade, running water and such.

And yet, with all those things, people still die in heat waves.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Just because YOU do not understand my point doesn't make it poor, or wrong.

Ah, the "nuh-uh" defense. Well played.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:If the southwest is so unlivable how do you explain the 70 some Native American tribes I found from that area in a cursory glance on the internet?

For the third, and last time, saying an area is dangerous and not safe for people to live in is not the same as saying no one has ever lived in any place ever. The tribes of the Southwest United States did not live in every part of the Southwest becuase they weren't stupid. They lived in habitable areas and learned how to traverse dangerous areas as well as avoiding certain areas altogether becuase of how dangerous they are. Just as people live in Texas does not mean that every area in Texas has people living in it. There are more habitable areas today becuase of technology, but still not every area is hospitable without cultivation.

Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.


also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.

curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.


also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.

Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.

People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.

There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.


also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.

Can I have my cookie?

I request peanut butter chocolate chip.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.


also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.

Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.

People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.

There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

Have a look at dollol eithiopia, the hottest INHABITED place on earth (according to wikipedia) has an average annual temp on 93.9F and has a daily maximum of 41C my C to F is bad but i think 41 is about 110F, this is quite fun when compared to your if spring is 130/140 you need A/C and if 110 suck it up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

curtis wrote:Really really want to make a rebutal to the 'only unhealthy people die of heat complications' (paraphrased) but can't for another 12 hours at least (on phone and going work soon), if anyone does it I'll give you a cookie.


also the CDC says AC is the best preventative measure to combat heat exhaustion et al.

Yeah, if you are living an unhealthy "American" lifestyle.

People have willingly lived in far more extreme places than TX, and AZ. I have been to many of these places, and I will say this: If the Temp's get above 130-140 degrees F, and it's still considered "spring" you need A/C. If a "heat wave" is 110, man-up, drink water, be healthier to give yourself the best chance to survive well through it, but you don't NEED A/C.

There are some places that do need A/C, but often times those aren't the private residence. I know that things like hospitals need to be completely regulated to best serve patients who enter, but thats not the same thing as what I'm talking about.

Have a look at dollol eithiopia, the hottest INHABITED place on earth (according to wikipedia) has an average annual temp on 93.9F and has a daily maximum of 41C my C to F is bad but i think 41 is about 110F, this is quite fun when compared to your if spring is 130/140 you need A/C and if 110 suck it up.


Edit: aww my first double post ...and hottest temp on record is only 136F measured in africa 1922 so where is it 130/140 in spring?

Ethiopia also happens to be starving to death. It's okay though. I'm sure they can suck it up.

ITT people overestimating their own hardship, and scoffing at that of other people.

dogma wrote:ITT people overestimating their own hardship, and scoffing at that of other people.

How dare you suggest my life of leisure internet surfing with a hamburger in one hand and TV remote in the other is in anyway less challenging than surviving in a country whose only export is rocks with little opportunity to acquire food and medicine!

Good day sir. I hope you're happy now

I watched an interesting little TV show a while back. It was made in the UK, and took jobs that were being given to immigrant workers, and instead got long term unemployed natives to try them. A bunch of them didn't show for work on the first day, and of the rest only the one guy working construction could handle the job. The waitstaff struggled, the factory workers were way off the pace, and the agricultural staff were an absolute disaster.

Thing is, if you're born here and you're willing to get stuck in and do some serious work, then it's extremely unlikely that you'll have to settle for picking turnips for a tick over minimum wage. And if you're not willing to work hard, then it's really, really unlikely you're going to be much use as a farmhand.

Which leaves a nice opportunity to have migrant workers from countries that don't provide our opportunities come in and work on the farms. They get paid more than they would get back home, and the money they send back improves the opportunities for their children's generation. It's a pretty decent arrangement all around.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of vested interests out there. There's folk who like to pretend they really honest and truly would get off their asses and work if only the immigrants weren't taking their jobs. And as long as the labour is illegal, farm owners can exploit the workers and keep them living in shameful working conditions. This leads to governments restricting the amount of legal immigrant labour, creating a black market, which in turn inevitably leads to the problems you see with any underground market.

The answer isn't increasing harsh punishments for people crossing the border (if punishment is the answer, then wouldn't it be smarter to punish the companies employing these people?) The answer is to build a better legislative environment, so that farms that want migrant labour can get it legally.

I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.
A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way. Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years. The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there. That said given a choice I'd eat a little leaner to pay the electric bill and keep cool.
@curtis People die, it sucks, I'm over it.
@immigration reform. I remember when they passed SB1070 here in AZ the President of Mexico gave a speech in Washington on how awful and overbearing it was. Odd considering until 2008 illegal immigration was a criminal violation in the Estados Unidos (probably misspelled). Mexico has some of the harshest immigration policies on the continents (yeah North and South). If Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama instituted the Mexican policies even supporters of immigration reform would go apeshit.
I can't speak for Alabamas law, but Arizonas doesn't allow the police to simply walk up to a "Hispanic looking person" and say, "you there brownie, show me yer papers." there is a process by which the officer arrives at a decision point where he suspects the person he is talking to might be illegal. I'm a little sketchy on the details but something along the lines of, "sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"
"que?"
"sir, do you know why I pulled you over?"
"no se"
"license, registration, and proof of insurance"
"Yo no tengo una licencia válida de conductores de estado, la visa, ni el gobierno publicaron documento de identificación. También, Mi vehículo es registrado en Sonora y probablemente robado. Yo no tengo seguro."
"Sir, I pulled you over because you don't have a license plate, I now also suspect that you do not have a valid drivers licence, auto registration, or insurance. What is your name and social security number should you choose to provide it, so I can ask dispatch to look you up. Que es su nombre?"
"no se"
Replace the Spanish portions with French(Liberians or worse Quebecois) or Pakistani and it's still valid. All just in AZ. Were a police officer to strut up and demand papers from my wife or say her grandmother (who doesn't bother to speak English) he'd probably find himself firmly unemployed. Since the grandmother in law immigrated here legally and has been a US Citizen for more than 50 years, it also happens to violate her Fourth Amendment rights if you skip the necessary steps; you know other than being offensive and racist. Turns out being brown doesn't make you illegal.
So now that it should be quite obvious I have a horse in this race: immigration reform is necessary, and this country needs to look out for number 1. With unemployment soaring illegals have the choice to naturalize or run once enforcement becomes the rule rather than exception. In 1900 fewer than 1/5 of my ancestors lived in the US. As the scion of a few immigrant families I believe that immigrants should be welcome, and documented.
@living wage. Purely in the US the cost of goods and services can also be linked to inflation. Everyone of my friends has been treated to a lecture on what the Federal Reserve is and how it works. I'll spare Dakka, but encourage you to find out for yourself. Aside from inflation there's just the plain cost of goods. Tariffs protect home industry, and the global market is kind to no one. A country with the industrial (now crumbling), technological, and agricultural resources the US has could close it's markets entirely and still thrive. Things are expensive and life is hard. Somehow we have forgotten that. I don't have the answers but I believe that a consumption driven economy is not sustainable, that printing money instead of specie only benefits the rich, that clumsy labor driven local economies should reassert thier roles, that my kitchen table should last a lifetime,
Also, I think Carthage should be Destroyed.

AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night.

And as we all know, every inch is a city full of people there to, right? Wait, what? Large stretches of area with no cities and towns? Centralized populations?

AustonT wrote:A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way.

And since no one has made that argument that A/C is necessary for all human survival I'm not sure what your point is. Makes me think you aren't really reading what people are posting, what with the refuting of non-existing arguments.

AustonT wrote:Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years.

Humanity thrived for a lot longer than thousands of years by finding habitable places, even in unpleasant areas. There is a reason that some areas still have no permanent habitations. There is a huge difference between being able to survive an area and setting up shop permanently. Through a great deal of resourcefulness humanity has learned to traverse some pretty nasty places but without technological advances we could never live there for extended periods. If you drop a human off in the middle of the antarctic with nothing and told him to live there he would die. Drop him off with minimal supplies he might be able to survive long enough to find help. Give him enough supplies (generator, cold weather gear, construction materials, and other people) and he can set up a working habitation. There are places in the world where if we didn't use technology we wouldn't be able to have permanent settlements without advances. Your argument seems to stem for a false notion that we are talking about comfort vs uncomfortable, which is not what is being referred to. Even the military puts soldiers through different environmental and survival training becuase there are still areas of the world that will kill you, even with training. Sometimes the training is more about surviving long enough for help to arrive becuase there is only so much time before you are just flat out fethed.

AustonT wrote:The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there.

You'll also notice they don't live in the worst parts of the land. There is a difference between living in an inhospitable area (though I would argue that, other than water conservation, it is far from the most difficult place to live) and an uninhabitable area. They also didn't survive by taking the attitude "people die, suck it up".

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:A/C is not a necessity, you really can't argue any other way.

And since no one has made that argument that A/C is necessary for all human survival I'm not sure what your point is. Makes me think you aren't really reading what people are posting, what with the refuting of non-existing arguments.

really? NO ONE has made the argument that AC is a necessity. NO ONE? the only thing that NO ONE has made the argument for is that it is necessary for "all human survival" you added that qualifier on your own.

Melissia wrote:Being able to obtain the basic necessities of life (fresh, non-rotten food; clean water, for both drinking and cleaning; shelter, including air conditioning and heating depending on the climate; and obtain viable transport from home to work, as otherwise they'll not be able to hold the job in the first place) without goin into debt.

AustonT wrote:Humanity thrived without it for thousands of years.

Humanity thrived for a lot longer than thousands of years by finding habitable places, even in unpleasant areas. There is a reason that some areas still have no permanent habitations. There is a huge difference between being able to survive an area and setting up shop permanently. Through a great deal of resourcefulness humanity has learned to traverse some pretty nasty places but without technological advances we could never live there for extended periods. If you drop a human off in the middle of the antarctic with nothing and told him to live there he would die. Drop him off with minimal supplies he might be able to survive long enough to find help. Give him enough supplies (generator, cold weather gear, construction materials, and other people) and he can set up a working habitation. There are places in the world where if we didn't use technology we wouldn't be able to have permanent settlements without advances. Your argument seems to stem for a false notion that we are talking about comfort vs uncomfortable, which is not what is being referred to. Even the military puts soldiers through different environmental and survival training becuase there are still areas of the world that will kill you, even with training. Sometimes the training is more about surviving long enough for help to arrive becuase there is only so much time before you are just flat out fethed.
since you mentioned permanent habitation, and failed to mention hunting and gathering I assume that you consider thriving to he associated with permanent habitation. Since the Neolithic revolution occurred around 8,000 BCE, 10000 on the absolute outside. And the first proto civilizations didn't show up until somewhere between 6,000 and 5000 BCE ( I tend to lean towards 5,000) I'd say that humanity has "thrived" for "thousands" of years

AustonT wrote:The Hopi live in the oldest continuously occupied structures in the known world, AC still a recent inclusion there.

You'll also notice they don't live in the worst parts of the land. There is a difference between living in an inhospitable area (though I would argue that, other than water conservation, it is far from the most difficult place to live) and an uninhabitable area. They also didn't survive by taking the attitude "people die, suck it up".

If you think the Hopi love in a hospitable part of the land I encourage you to give up your current lifestyle and join the traditionalist enclave of Hopi near Oraibi.
Since I said "people die, it sucks, I'm over it" directly to Curtis who quoted heat deaths I fail to see how you think the two clearly separated trains of thought were linked. Or do you also believe that I was talking about immigration reform in relation to Hopi living conditions and air conditioning?

You don't know quote tags but can use colors?

AustonT wrote:really? NO ONE has made the argument that AC is a necessity. NO ONE? the only thing that NO ONE has made the argument for is that it is necessary for "all human survival" you added that qualifier on your own.

Not as a human necessity, no, they haven't. It has been argued that certain places would require them for long term habitation in areas that previously would not have been prosperous. Again, humans living in the Antarctic. Without portable generators and advanced materials (cloth, metal, ect) we couldn't have the permanent settlements that we do now. The argument that human beings can not survive w/o AC has not been put forth, just that certain areas would need it to sustain permanent settlements.

AustonT wrote:since you mentioned permanent habitation, and failed to mention hunting and gathering I assume that you consider thriving to he associated with permanent habitation. Since the Neolithic revolution occurred around 8,000 BCE, 10000 on the absolute outside. And the first proto civilizations didn't show up until somewhere between 6,000 and 5000 BCE ( I tend to lean towards 5,000) I'd say that humanity has "thrived" for "thousands" of years

You do know that the human animal didn't just pop up around 8000-10000 BC right? We've been talking about permanent habitation in relation to human settlements and the technology used to open up new areas that were previously just travel through country at best, or to be avoided at worst.

AustonT wrote:If you think the Hopi love in a hospitable part of the land I encourage you to give up your current lifestyle and join the traditionalist enclave of Hopi near Oraibi.

I actually specifically said they lived in a inhospitable area so again with refuting arguments that aren't being made. I also said of all the inhospitable areas that humans live i didn't think it was necessarily the most inhospitable. Our options are broader then either being hospitable or the worst place in the world to live. I also didn't say it was a fact, but that it was arguable that there may be a few rougher spots. There is certainly room for debate. Either way it goes back to my point that inhospitable and uninhabitable are not synonyms. The Hopi didn't accidentally make there villages in some places and not others.

Out of curiosity, how many years did you spend living a traditional Hopi lifestyle?

We like the thoughts presented to be a tad more nuanced than this please.

Ta.

reds8n

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Who is John Galt?

A character created by a third-rate philosopher whose work has since become regarded as an object of quasi-religious devotion.

You sure he's not Bob Galt's brother? Bob's one heck of a mechanic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Phanatik wrote:
Who is John Galt?

A character created by a third-rate philosopher whose work has since become regarded as an object of quasi-religious devotion.

You sure he's not Bob Galt's brother? Bob's one heck of a mechanic.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:

Melissia wrote:Okay, I challenge you to go live in a concrete heat trap (IE, anywhere near a city) with no air conditioning during a Texas heat wave-- 115 degrees, 80% or higher humidity, no wind. And not only do that, but also do that while working a fourty hour work week, while only eating ramen noodles and drinking non-cooled water.

Many tougher people than you have died because of this kind of situation... you might live through it, but you'd certainly come out FAR worse for wear, and probably be too exhausted to really do your job properly, nevermind advance in it.

The human body tends to acclimate to whatever climate it is exposed to rather quickly (days to weeks). People have been living on the equator and in other extremely hot climates around the world far longer than A/C has been around.

I have worked in extreme heat as well, I used to run cable in Florida and would often find myself in peoples attics in mid afternoon when 110-120F would have been a blessing and 140-150 was the norm. At first I could barely stand 3-5 minutes but after getting used to it I could tolerate it till the job was done as long as I drank tons of water, usually hot out of the back of my truck.

Seriously, find an old steel mill worker who used to pull 12-16 hours days playing with molten steel and try telling him 115 degrees is too hot to work 40 hours a week when they worked in 150 degree mills in full body suits and thermal underwear.

Blah blah whatever. legally, in Texas warranties of habitability include insurance, just as heating is included in the north. It is viewed legally as a necessity for living.

AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.

Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.

See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.

My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!

Yeah, I don't buy that most of Iraq has eighty percent humidity....

Also, the human body is generally built to handle short periods of intense stress, rather than long periods of intense stress Long periods of intense stress breaks the body down and makes it become very unhealthy. Short periods are in many ways actually healthy for the body.

To paraphrase Sam Kinison:
We have deserts in our country, but we don't live in 'em without A/C!
Move to where the A/C is!!!

Okay, but only if you pay for the millions of people you're relocating.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a word little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.

Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.

See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.

My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!

I spent a whole year in Iraq, I didn't find it humid.

It was fething hot in summer, and relatively cold on a night in winter, but it wasn't totally honking like the jungle in Africa.

Do you REALLY get to minus 60 in the states though!? That just sounds wrong to me. I trained in Tromso in northern Norway and it only got down to like minus 15 or something.

Oh no hang on, you guys have funny temperature's.

dogma wrote:

AustonT wrote:I seem to remember a weird little country sandwiched between Kuwait and Iran that sees temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains. Seems I also recal A/C and heaters were hard to come by for a few months before engineers got around to it. You know after showers and shitters.

Since the majority of Iraq is a dessert, I doubt that 80% humidity is something which occurs often in most areas of it.

See, that's the funny thing about using ranges to describe the climate of a large area of land, it generally doesn't mean anything. For example, the temperature in the United States ranges from 130 degrees in Death Valley to -60 degrees in Utah.

My God, the US is less hospitable than Iraq, those lazy soldiers have it easy!

I don't remember saying the whole country was at 80% humidity, I was giving a range and really just from my personal experience. Like when it does this:

after this:

I also hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of the populated portions of Iraq are defined by water.
In fact Lake Tharthar develops its own thunderstorms that general push East. You'll also note that the Med dumps its moisture off into Iraq on the frequent, so does the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea. So most of the time the temperature is high and the humidity is low. But there are plenty of reasons and situations where both are high.
Kuwait is much worse than Iraq IMO because its a sandy shithole with no real vegetation, and humidity blowing off the Gulf making it an unbearable mess.
I also wasn't talking about a 60 degree temperature shift across the entire country, just in one place. Nor was the range I gave for the whole country, just one place. So when the range is anything from 0-80% humidity and 10-140 degrees in one place of the course of a year it is pretty extreeme. But you cant employ the hyperbole that the whole country is constantly on the extreme end of both ranges all the time, since I certainly didn't imply or indicate that was the case. I can restate from the quoted piece with extra qualifiers:
I saw temperatures at or above 140 degrees with anything from 0-80% humidity and no air conditioning in the day, and a 60 degree temperature shift at night. Freezing winters and driving rains.In one location

AustonT wrote:
I also hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of the populated portions of Iraq are defined by water.

You don't say. Its almost as abundant fresh water can facilitate human habitation in regions with high temperatures.

AustonT wrote:
So when the range is anything from 0-80% humidity and 10-140 degrees in one place of the course of a year it is pretty extreeme.

Unless this place was a desert that experienced an uncharacteristic rainstorm it did not see both 0% and 80% humidity. Also, you did not experience 140 degree heat, the world record temperature is 136 degrees. You may have seen a thermometer that displayed 140 degree heat, but most thermometers are wildly inaccurate.

Incidentally, many places in Arizona and New Mexico have experienced 60 degree temperature shifts as well.

While the discussion on how hospitable one region is compared to another and such is interesting, allow me to skew back somewhat to the OT.

Several thoughts about this.

First, if illegal immigrants represent such a economic boon and enforcing immigration laws and such is such a negative drain on the local economy, then states who do not attempt to enforce “federal” law as rigorously that border states that do such as Alabama, I would presume would be happy to see the illegal immigrants relocate to their state. In other words, Alabama’s loss is Tennessee’s and North Carolina’s gain!? If Alabama wants to commit economic suicide by aggressively enforcing “federal” law, why stop them?

My second thought is why do illegal immigrants think they must break the law to be in the US?

If the justification to break US immigration laws is because the conditions from where they come from are so intolerable, what is there to stop illegal immigrant from taking the next step and justifying other criminal acts because of how “intolerable” the conditions in their country of origin are?

If it is morally and ethically wrong to prosecute and deport illegal immigrants, why have immigration laws to begin with?

If there is no sense in having immigration laws, then what reason is there to monitor the borders or airports? Is it just to make sure that people are paying the proper duties and tariffs on items brought into the country (many designed to protect “American” jobs) which many believe uncontrolled immigration threatens?

Is it not contradictory that a political party who champion labor union’s causes, unions that vehemently oppose the terms of the NAFTA, including allowing Mexican Nationals to legally drive semi trucks throughout the United States that supposedly threaten US jobs and US lives, to essentially advocate for unchecked immigration, which many claim threatens US jobs and US lives?

Do illegal immigrants have an obligation to conform to the society of the country they immigrate to or does the country have an obligation to reorder its society to accommodate the illegal immigrant?

They could very well have entered legally, but then simply stayed longer than they were allowed to stay and thus become illegal. There's limits to the number of people allowed to immigrate in to the country. There's limits to how long they are allowed to stay. There are quotas and laws and restrictions and limitations and it's a just a whole fething mess. After the attacks on 9/11/2001, we've had more and more restrictions, and so the percentage of Mexican nationals entering illegally as opposed to legally has risen to nearly eighty percent. Hell, we've had several times as many immigrants entering illegally as are allowed to enter legally-- many of them may very well have been entering legally if they could.

What there is no limit to is how much paperwork you have to fill out and how many tests you have to pass to become citizen. Depending on the decade, it can get veritably labyrinthine. Some efforts are underway


You should read up on the 1990 Immigration Act, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.