3 ms·

Yeah it can be deadly but it is unfortunately quite common. People adapt to it and can tolerate longer spans in it but it's still super taxing and requires reg

• lazide 2y ago
  I’m sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. 95% relative humidity means sweat won’t evaporate, and there is no evaporative cooling. 100F external temps are above cooling temps and near dangerous baseline body temperatures. 100+F + 95% relative humidity will literally kill people, regardless of adaptations. Fans won’t help. Fatal core temperature ranges are so close, even baseline metabolic heat can kill someone from hyperthermia in those conditions. [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010916/#:~:text=For%2520the%2520same%2520setting%2520and,C%2520to%252037%C2%B0C https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10010916/#:~:text=F....] In a general environmental sense, current estimates have 95F outside temps and 95% relative humidity being the point where mass die offs of mammals start to occur. It’s a major concern with global temperature changes [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913352107 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0913352107]. Skin temperatures > 95F (which will occur if air temp is 95F or higher and there is no evaporative cooling ability) inevitably lead to hyperthermia even in fit and acclimated individuals - even at rest Most of the time, people just don’t realize what the actual relative humidity is. ‘Terribly humid’ is usually more like 60% RH. 95% is saturated, often foggy/misty. ‘At least it’s a dry heat’ in Deserts, which allows people to survive high temps, are often 5-10% relative humidity or even lower. There, the biggest challenge is staying hydrated enough to sustain the rapid loss of water. In some situations it’s possible to lose a gallon an hour. But it’s possible. In 95% RH, that gallon makes no difference and you’ll flat out die instead.
  • Taek 2y ago
    The amount of arrogance in this thread about what temperatures become fatal is baffling. Hyperthermia is not something that kills you on the timeline of minutes or even hours at wet bulb temperatures of 100F+, or even 105F+. Remember, when people get sick it's not typically fatal for them to hold a body temperature of 104 degrees, even if sustained for more than 24 hours. Being in a work environment at 95+% relative humidity and 100F is going to be unpleasant, but as long as you are well adapted to it and you get to somewhere cooler within a few hours you are going to be fine. People push well beyond a wet bulb of 105F in saunas all the time, often sustained for 30+ minutes. I think if you had yourself ever been in a room that's 110F and 100% humidity (meaning it's literally raining continuously from condensation) you'd realize that it's really not that extreme of a temperature, and that it takes hours for your core to heat up to a place where you will be at risk of dying.
    • lazide 2y ago
      I know of at least one instance where several well acclimatized individuals died in less than 15 minutes in open air in the Grand Canyon above the Colorado River due to solar heating and 95% wet bulb humidity. I’d argue you just haven’t actually been in those types of situations either. In that case I think they estimated 110ish air temps. But maybe I’m misremembering - I heard it from the investigating safety officer though. I have yet to see anyone actually able to work or function in actual 100% humidity and 100+ degrees temps for more than a few minutes before having serious problems. I’ve seen plenty of people have problems in 60% humidity which everyone agreed was terrible. Mostly heat stroke. People’s core temp is already just a hair under 100F, and even at rest are producing 100ish watts of thermal energy. It really doesn’t take much for it to start spiking if cooling is literally impossible.
      • CuriousCosmic 2y ago
        With 100% humidity you definitely can't survive or function but with 95% at 100F exactly it's just barely feasible. That gives you just enough margin due to evaporative cooling that with sufficient air flow you can maintain a temperature of 97-98F via evaporative cooling. And importantly this only works in the shade. Outdoors it's unlikely to be feasible due to the rise in surface temperatures due to thermal radiation from the sun. That of course requires a strong fan blowing and regular, heavy hydration to sustain but it's feasible. So it's workable in an industrial environment where you can adjust the environment enough to get by but outdoors in large wild spaces like the Grand Canyon (as per your example) it's unlikely to be survivable for long. And notably in an indoor environment there is a big difference between an operator running a machine or vehicle and an individual under heavy exertion. The added thermal stress of heavy exertion makes it less survivable as well. So in the end it only really works in factory settings because: - There's no sun to add radiative heat. - There's fans and ventilation to maintain evaporative cooling. - Workers can take regular or semi-regular breaks in a cooler or lower humidity environment to recover some from the thermal stress and to recover water and electrolytes. - Those workers can limit their activity to rates of exertion/heat production that don't exceed the limited evaporative cooling they have access to. As soon as you remove one of those advantages or increase the temperature much above 100F or increase the RH above 95%, survivability becomes way less likely.