Could the colour of your child's swimsuit save their life?
There's no scientific proof, but it's a question worth asking, could the colour of your child's swimsuit play a role in how visible they are in the water?
Some water safety experts think it might.
A company called Alive Solutions, which specializes in water safety, conducted a few experiments to explore how swimsuit colours perform in both pools and lakes. In two separate experiments they found that certain swimsuit colours are easier to spot in a swimming pool versus open water.
Independently conducted testing
The tests were conducted independently and not published in a peer-reviewed journal. In controlled tests, swimsuits in 14 different colours were submerged in different bodies of water to observe how visible they were under certain conditions.
In a swimming pool, with a light-coloured bottom, the company's tests showed that neon pink and neon orange seemed to be most visible. White and light blue colours, on the other hand, tended to disappear, blending in with the pool bottom.
Darker colours showed up against the light pool bottom, but could often be dismissed for shadows, leaves or dirt.
In lake water, the tests showed that bright neon colours including neon orange, yellow and green were visible but neon pink did not perform well. White swimsuits appeared more vibrant due to reflecting light. All other colours were not very visible.
Swimsuit Colour Test
The company Alive Solutions tested how visible various swimsuit colours are against a light-coloured swimming pool bottom. The top photo in each section is the fabric underwater, and the bottom photo is the fabric with surface agitation. (Courtesy Natalie Livingston via CNN Newsource)
Many factors play a role
According to the Lifesaving Society Ontario, many other factors play a role in visibility, including glare, water clarity or even wave action.
'Dressing in swimwear that is high-contrast to your environment may increase your ability to be seen in the water, but there are many factors such as glare, water clarity and water agitation that can still reduce visibility. There is a lack of formal research to support wearing one colour over another in specific settings under specific conditions,' Stephanie Bakalar, senior communications officer of Lifesaving Society Ontario told CTV News.
Still, even if these results haven't been formally validated, they point to a simple step that could improve safety.
That said, no colour choice replaces the need for constant supervision. 'In Ontario, 100 per cent of drowning deaths in children under five is caused by absent or distracted supervision.' Bakalar said. 'It is important that when children are around water that they are directly supervised by a responsible adult and in the case of weak or non-swimmers they remain within arms' reach.'
Water safety
Approved lifejackets offer another layer of protection, especially on boats. Provincial experts recommend lifejackets in bold colours.
'We recommend lifejackets be red, orange or yellow to increase your visibility on the water and approved by Transport Canada,' Bakalar continued.
The safest place to swim is where trained lifeguards are on duty. Fewer than one per cent of drowning deaths in the province occur in lifeguard-supervised areas, according to Lifesaving Society Ontario.
'The Society's national lifeguards are trained to scan the surface, middle and bottom of their supervision zones and maneuver to reduce visual disruptions such as glare. Water quality standards in pools are set to ensure clarity allows for visibility to the bottom. Natural bodies of water present different challenges to visibility, but lifeguard supervised waterfront zones are established to create the most visibility possible,' Bakalar said.
So, does swimsuit colour save lives? It is not scientifically proven. But in the approach to water safety which starts with supervision and includes life jackets, swimming lessons, and safe environments it could be a small change that makes a difference.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Globe and Mail
8 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
James Webb Telescope's shocking findings spectacularly validate the revolutionary, ‘ultimate theory' of science
James Webb Telescope is looking at 13.5 billion years old objects from human perspective, but is seeing in real-time from universe's perspective. James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been repeatedly making global headline news. It has shaken the foundations of cosmology, and entire science. JWST has discovered that MoM z14 galaxy existed when the universe was just 280 million years old (i.e. when the universe was really in infant stage). The measured emission lines from this galaxy indicated overabundance of elements like nitrogen and carbon. This was damn shocking because there is not a single theoretical model that predicts this much nitrogen this early on (which would require the birth and death of several generations of stars). JWST also discovered Zhúlóng, an enormous spiral galaxy (appears as Milky Way galaxy's cosmic twin). Zhúlóng is a mature galaxy and seriously challenges current theories about galaxy formation. JWST has made many other such incredible discoveries. But the core message is: the infant universe appears to be eerily similar to what it is right now after 13.8 billion years since the Big Bang. The reason why the infant universe looks the same as mature (adult) universe might be very simple: James Webb Telescope is looking at 13.5 billion years old objects from human perspective, but is seeing in real-time from universe's perspective, and hence it looking at those distant object as it is right now. It will be shame if the core message from the largest and most powerful space telescope ever (with a price tag of more than 10 billion US dollars) is ignored by the global scientific community. At the heart of Einstein's relativity, there is a contradiction; a paradox. For any observer, light appears to be travelling at the velocity c (= 299,792,458 m/s), and hence would take millions or even billions of years to move from one galaxy to another. But from the photon's perspective, time stops ticking completely. Photon (particle of light) does not experience the passage of time while moving from one galaxy to another. In other words, light can travel instantaneously across farthest distances in the universe. Unfortunately, Einstein did not understand the true physical meaning of relativity, and the world is also unaware what Einstein's mathematics is really telling. A revolutionary theory has emerged which reconciles the two bitterly conflicting pillars of physics, as well as unifies physics with cosmology. It claims to satisfy all three necessary conditions for a scientific revolution, and usher in a complete paradigm shift in science. It claims that the universe is like an expanding (hyper) balloon, which has a 3D hyper-surface. The wall of the balloon universe is made up of invisible scalar fields (somewhat similar to invisible electric and magnetic fields) and particles (which are mere excitations/resonances in those fields, just as the stunningly accurate 'Quantum Field Theory' insists). Since stars and planets and even humans are made up of particles, therefore all forms of matter is eternally trapped within the 3D hypersurface of fields which makes up the wall of the (hyper) balloon. The above-mentioned article claimed about the existence of two different frames of reference/viewpoints (one viewpoint is from any point on the surface, and another viewpoint is from the center of the balloon universe). The universe is perceived differently from each viewpoint, and this also implies the existence of two different concepts of time. Photon's perspective happens to be the center of the universe viewpoint. There are two pillars of modern physics: Einstein's Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Both are spectacularly successful in their own domains, but are in bitter mutual conflicts. The core conflict is about the nature of time and is known as the 'problem of time'. Quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative. Experiments have supported both concepts. Sagnac effect demonstrates that simultaneity is absolute and support Quantum Mechanics' view of time. Muon decay experiments as well as Hafele-Keating experiment (which involved flying atomic clocks around the world on commercial airplanes) support relativistic view about time. Actually Quantum Mechanics is the center of the universe perspective, while relativity is all about being trapped in the 3D (hyper) surface of the expanding universe, but being free to move along any three mutually perpendicular directions. Physics and cosmology are both in crisis because of (presently accepted) wrong model of the universe. Veritasium science channel hosts a YouTube video (23 million views) titled 'Why No One Has Measured the Speed of Light' which explains why it is fundamentally impossible to measure the one-way speed of light. That video provides a crucial hint of how nature truly works. The presenter gives the accepted value of speed of light (c = 299,792,458 m/s) and then goes on to prove that light may never travel at this speed! While one way speed of light cannot be measured, the two way speed of light can be measured (by placing a mirror at the other end for reflecting light). But now, the problem shifts to synchronization of the two clocks placed at the source and the mirror. The real problem lies NOT with ONE WAY speed. The true problem is whether a distant point is also located in the past or not. The two-way velocity of light has been measured very accurately and found to be 299,792,458 m/s. But, what if, the delay in time (between the shining of torch and detection after reflection in the mirror) is actually contributed by the space distance? Indeed, that is exactly what happens! Please see the provided image. Actually the velocity of light is infinite. It the peculiarity of Minkowski SpaceTime (MST) hyperbolic geometry which throttles the value of the velocity of light (as well as velocity of gravity wave) at the particular value c. Actually, c is the expansion velocity of the universe, and light picks this particular value. It is a peculiarity of MST geometry that it mixes space and time. As any object moves very fast, the spatial distance covered (dr) is large. Therefore, the base of the right angled triangle is large. But as the base increases, the hypotenuse also increases, and hence time dilation (dt) also increases. Therefore, the space (spatial) distance gets measured as time distance. It is for this reason that the farther an object is located the more distant in the past it lies. However, that problem arises for humans (trapped eternally in the surface of the balloon universe), because of the compulsion of placing the origin at the wrong place. But for nature, the origin is at the true center of the universe and hence distances between points located on the surface are ignored. From nature's view, simultaneity is absolute. That is because the time elapsed since the Big Bang is just a function of radius of the universe (distance from true center of the universe to any point on the surface), and is same everywhere. Whether the point is located on the moon or the sun or on the Andromeda galaxy does not matter, because all of them are equidistant from the true center of the universe (where the Big Bang happened). In essence, the James Webb Telescope (JWST) it looking at those distant galaxies as it is right now! Just because those galaxies are extremely red-shifted does not mean that they have to be in the very distant past (from nature's perspective). Light is travelling instantly from those galaxies to JWST. This is not an insane claim. After all, quantum entanglement experiments have demonstrated beyond doubt that particles can communicate instantly over vast distances. Similarly, emission and absorption of photons takes place simultaneously, but appear to have travelled at finite velocity c from human perspective. BUT WHY THE 'ULTIMATE' TAG WITH THIS SCIENCE THEORY? Is it justified? Probably, yes. The list of achievements (explaining power) of this theory is incredibly stunning. It easily (and naturally) explains: 1) Standard Model of Particle physics (which accounts for three forces, and all particles of nature), by explaining the origin of U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) internal symmetries. 2) Principle of Least Action (PLA). All known laws of physics can be derived from PLA. The PLA can be generalized to 'Principle of Maximum Proper time', which reduces to the shockingly simple statement: 'The least distance between two points in four dimensional (hyper) space is a straight line'. Nature's true geometry is therefore Euclidean, and nature has to obey this geometrical (mathematical) law everywhere! 3) Ever increasing entropy (second law of thermodynamics). Many scientists regard this as the most fundamental law, but, in fact, it originates from the stretching of the wall (expansion of 3D space) of the universe. 4) Imaginary time and its relation with temperature. 5) Origin of crucial conservation laws of physics (arises from the simple symmetries of the balloon according to Noether's theorem). 6) True origin of the rest mass energy (which is given by the most famous equation of science E=mc2). It supersedes the two pillars of modern physics. It also unifies physics and cosmology, and can replace the (presently accepted) Standard Model of Cosmology. In addition, this theory may remain reigning for a long time to come. It is immune to new physics. For example: Discovery of Higg's Boson in 2012 has completed the Standard Model of Particle physics. Claims of new physics at extremely small distances (which is taken to be synonymous with extremely high energy) may be erroneous. Since time and space starts exchanging roles at a very small size scale (according to above model), the above logic might also reverse. This is actually hinted by nature: i) Strong nuclear force start becoming weak at smaller distances (the relative coupling strength decreases with increasing energy). ii) Quarks interaction strength also decreases with distance (Asymptotic freedom). This theory is also immune to new physics (new particles etc.) arising due to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The universe is expanding at a constant rate (zero acceleration) and hence there is no Dark Energy. This theory reinterprets the physical meaning of all metrics (like FLRW metric, Minskowski metric, Schwarzchild metric) and claims that Dark Matter is an illusion arising from improper understanding of General Relativity. This theory clearly states that the universe is a (hyper) balloon in 4D (hyper) space, which is Euclidean rather than Minkowskian. The 4D (hyper) space may be infinite in extent. Emptiness (nothingness of true vacuum) may be infinite in spatial extent. But amount of field and matter (which constitutes the universe) is finite. What about multiverse? This theory does not deny it, but does not require it either. It is silent on that topic. And even if multiverses really existed, there will be absolutely no interaction (of our universe) with those universes. Not even gravity leaks outside the 3+1 dimensions, as confirmed by recent measurements. So as far as humans are concerned, it is a final and ultimate theory. It is THE rock solid foundation on which all future theories in science will be based. It is THE bedrock theory of entire science. [194 National Anthems tunes have been merged into a single tune using World's most intelligent, musical A.I. software 'Emmy', to create this United Nations Anthem (World Anthem). Kindly watch and share: ] Mr. Joseph T. Kurien (a former Cochin University graduate) is an independent researcher and a part-time science writer. He presently works in Manappuram software and consultancy. Media Contact Company Name: Manappuram software and consultancy Contact Person: Joseph T. Kurien Email: Send Email State: Kerala Country: India Website:
Globe and Mail
11 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Is Rocket Lab USA Stock a Buy Now?
Over the past few decades, private companies have expanded the possibilities of space exploration and research. According to estimates from consultancy McKinsey, the space economy is projected to grow to $1.8 trillion by 2035. With such substantial growth ahead and innovation across the industry, the space economy is emerging as a potentially significant investment opportunity. Where to invest $1,000 right now? Our analyst team just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks to buy right now. Continue » While companies like SpaceX lead the way, they remain private. Alternatives like Rocket Lab USA (NASDAQ: RKLB) are making waves in the small-satellite launch market, and it is the second-most utilized launch provider in the U.S. The space company is expanding its services, including lunar exploration and satellite deployment, in response to increasing demand. Here's what investors should know about Rocket Lab and its long-term opportunity today. Second in space launches in the U.S. Rocket Lab USA, founded in 2017, has enjoyed strong demand for its services over the past several years. The company generated $436.2 million in revenue in 2024, representing a 78% increase from the previous year. Strong growth has been driven by increasing demand, as evidenced by its rising backlog of orders, which now stands at $1.1 billion. That sizable figure indicates strong demand and provides some visibility into its future revenue generation. The company anticipates recognizing about 56% of this backlog as revenue over the next year. Since its founding, Rocket Lab has completed 66 launch missions, including 16 in 2024, making it the No. 2 launch company in the U.S. However, it remains well behind SpaceX, which launched 132 rockets last year and has larger rockets and the ability to transport bigger payloads. Rocket Lab aims to close this gap with its Neutron rocket, which it expects to launch sometime this year. The rocket represents a significant development for Rocket Lab since it will allow transport of larger payloads -- nearly 40 times larger than its Electron launch vehicle. This capability is vital as demand for launching satellites and other cargo continues to grow. The larger rocket will also enable Rocket Lab to compete for larger contracts and achieve higher profits and margins per launch. Pursuing every part of the space value chain Besides its launch vehicles, Rocket Lab is carving out a niche in the space systems section of the broader space economy. For example, it acquired the German company Mynaric for $75 million. It provides laser optical- communications terminals for air, space, and mobile applications. By acquiring Mynaric, Rocket Lab can scale up production of optical communication terminals, which are crucial for satellite-to-satellite connectivity. The German company was already a subcontractor for Rocket Lab, and the integration will give it greater control over its supply chain, allowing it to operate more efficiently. CEO Peter Beck said that his company would pursue every part of the space value chain and that it was "closing in on the final step and most valuable part of the space economy: operating our own constellations to provide data and services from space." Rocket Lab's finances As an investor evaluating opportunities within the aerospace sector, it's crucial to analyze the current financial state of Rocket Lab. Delays in the launch of the Neutron rocket could hinder its near-term prospects and would likely weigh on the stock in the short term. Furthermore, the company is grappling with sizable operational losses, reflecting its high cash burn, which may be a red flag for conservative investors seeking stability. Last year, revenue was $436.2 million while the cost of revenue and operating expenses soared to $626 million. As a result, the company had an operating loss of $190 million. This trend continued in the first quarter, with an operating loss of $59 million on $122.5 million in revenue. RKLB Revenue (Quarterly) data by YCharts. Rocket Lab has expressed optimism about its path toward profitability. Analysts project the company could achieve positive cash flow by 2026 and earnings by 2027. Is Rocket Lab USA right for you? Rocket Lab's future is bright. Its backlog of orders is significant, and it has been included as part of the U.S. Space Force's $5.6 billion National Security Space Launch program. As part of this, Rocket Lab has been selected to compete for the Department of Defense's national security missions for its National Security Space Launch (NSSL) Phase 3 Lane 1 program. If chosen, its success here could lead to stable and potentially lucrative contracts over the long term. As investors, we must strike a balance between risk and reward and understand what we are getting into. Rocket Lab USA is a fast-growing company in the emerging space economy. It is positioning itself not just as a launch company, but as one that also operates across the entire space value chain. Rocket Lab's current financials may deter those seeking steady, reliable returns. However, for growth-focused investors, today could be an opportunity to get in at ground level with a company in an industry expected to experience significant growth in the years to come. Should you invest $1,000 in Rocket Lab right now? Before you buy stock in Rocket Lab, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Rocket Lab wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $659,171!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $891,722!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor 's total average return is995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to172%for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025
Globe and Mail
a day ago
- Globe and Mail
NFL widows, caregivers say CTE study minimizes their pain
Dozens of widows and other caregivers for former NFL players diagnosed with CTE say a published study is insulting and dismissive of their experience living with the degenerative brain disease that has been linked to concussions and other repeated head trauma common in contact sports like football. An open letter signed by the players' wives, siblings and children says the study published in the May 6 issue of Frontiers in Psychology suggests their struggles caring for loved ones was due to 'media hype' about chronic traumatic encephalopathy, rather than the disease itself. The implication that 'caregiver concerns are 'inevitable' due to 'publicity' is callous, patronizing, and offensive,' they said. 'The burden we experienced did not happen because we are women unable to differentiate between our lived experience and stories from TV or newspaper reports,' they wrote in the letter. 'Our loved ones were giants in life, CTE robbed them of their futures, and robbed us of our futures with them. Please don't also rob us of our dignity.' The pushback was led by Dr. Eleanor Perfetto, herself a medical researcher and the widow of former Steelers and Chargers end Ralph Wenzel, who developed dementia and paranoia and lost his ability to speak, walk and eat. He was first diagnosed with cognitive impairment in 1999 — six years before Pittsburgh center Mike Webster's CTE diagnosis brought the disease into the mainstream media. 'My own experience, it just gave a name to what I witnessed every day. It didn't put it in my head,' Perfetto said in an interview with The Associated Press. 'It gave it a name. It didn't change the symptoms.' The study published last month asked 172 caregivers for current and former professional football players 'whether they believed their partner had 'CTE.'' Noting that all of the respondents were women, Perfetto questioned why their experiences would be minimized. 'Women run into that every day,' she said. 'I don't think that's the only factor. I think the motivation is to make it seem like this isn't a real issue. It's not a real disease. It's something that people glommed on to because they heard about it in the media.' Hopes for study 'quickly turned to disappointment' The letter was posted online on Monday under the headline, 'NFL Caregivers to Harvard Football Player Health Study: Stop Insulting Us!' It had more than 30 signatures, including family of Hall of Famers Nick Buoniconti and Louis Creekmur. It praises the study for examining the fallout on loved ones who weathered the violent mood swings, dementia and depression that can come with the disease. The letter says the study gets it wrong by including what it considers unsupported speculation, such as: 'Despite being an autopsy-based diagnosis, mainstream media presentations and high-profile cases related to those diagnosed postmortem with CTE may have raised concerns among living players about CTE.' The letter said these are 'insulting conclusions that were not backed by study evidence.' 'Rather than exploring the lived experiences of partners of former athletes, they instead implied the partners' anxiety was caused by watching the news ... as if the media is to blame for the severe brain atrophy caused by CTE in our loved ones,' they wrote. Study authors Rachel Grashow and Alicia Whittington said in a statement provided to the AP that the goal of their research is 'to support NFL families, especially those caring for affected players or grieving for lost loved ones.' 'We regret if any of our work suggested otherwise,' they said. 'Our intent was not to minimize CTE — a disease that is far too real — but to point out that heightened attention to this condition can intensify existing concerns, and that symptoms attributed to CTE may, in some cases, stem from other treatable conditions that also deserve recognition and care.' But Perfetto feared the study was part of a trend to downplay or even deny the risks of playing football. After years of denials, the NFL acknowledged in 2016 a link between football and CTE and eventually agreed to a settlement covering 20,000 retired players that provided up to $US4-million for those who died with the disease. (Because it requires an examination of the brain tissue, CTE currently can only be diagnosed posthumously.) 'Why would a researcher jump to 'the media' when trying to draw conclusions out of their data, when they didn't collect any information about the media,' Perfetto told the AP. 'To me, as a researcher, you draw the implications from the results and you try to think of, practically, 'Why you come to these conclusions? Why would you find these results?' Well, how convenient is it to say that it was the media, and it takes the NFL off the hook?' 'By players, for players' The caregivers study is under the umbrella of the Football Players Health Study at Harvard University, a multifaceted effort 'working on prevention, diagnostics, and treatment strategies for the most common and severe conditions affecting professional football players.' Although it is funded by the NFL Players Association, neither the union nor the league has any influence on the results or conclusions, the website says. 'The Football Players Health Study does not receive funding from the NFL and does not share any data with the NFL,' a spokesperson said. Previous research — involving a total of more than 4,700 ex-players — is on topics ranging from sleep problems to arthritis. But much of it has focused on brain injuries and CTE, which has been linked to contact sports, military combat and other activities that can involve repetitive head trauma. When he died with advanced CTE in 2012 at age 69, Wenzel could no longer recognize Perfetto and needed help with everyday tasks like getting dressed or getting out of bed — an added problem because he was a foot taller and 100 pounds heavier than she is. 'When he died, his brain had atrophied to 910 grams, about the size of the brain of a 1-year-old child,' the letter said. Former Auburn and San Diego Chargers running back Lionel 'Little Train' James, who set the NFL record for all-purpose yards in 1985, was diagnosed with dementia at 55 and CTE after he died at 59. 'Treatable conditions were not the reason Lionel went from being a loving husband and father to someone so easily agitated that his wife and children had to regularly restrain him from becoming violent after dodging thrown objects,' the letter said. 'They were not likely to be the driving force behind his treatment-resistant depression, which contributed to alcoholism, multiple stays in alcohol rehabilitation treatment centers, arrests, suicidal ideation, and ultimately, his commitment to a mental institution.' Kesha James told the AP that she would disable the car to keep her husband from driving drunk. She said she had never spoken of her struggles but chose to tell her story now to remove the stigma associated with the players' late-in-life behavior — and the real-life struggles of their caregivers. 'I have videos that people probably would not believe,' James said. 'And I'll be honest with you: It is nothing that I'm proud of. For the last three years I've been embarrassed. I'm just going public now because I do want to help bring awareness to this — without bringing any shame to me and my kids — but just raise the awareness so that no other family can experience what I did.'
