This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
Why does the winter section talk about winter being "from November to March"? There's an entire half of the planet where winter is June to September. Simply putting, 'during the winter months' would be sufficient without adding an unnecessary (and incorrect) definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.44.220 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Covering the head is effective, but no more effective than covering any other part of the body"
According to the researchers... Do they know about thermal camera imaging? Did they use one? Embarassingly simple minded research which they disregard the naked human form when viewed with such a camera.
To limit heatloss best, you cover the hottest parts detected. This will always be the core survival areas: the face first (including ears), torso front second, hands third and if possible feet fourth. All others areas with have constricted blood supply to limit loss.
As a side note: If those "researchers" understood this, then rubbish like their findings would not be in wikipedia. Since it is in the guardian as the source, it somehow becomes gospel.
Their incorrect 'science' should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.145.64 (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]