Weekend Open Thread: Splish Splash Edition

by Eric Martin

Someone got his bath today - an event he enjoys immensely.  In fact, he likes the water so much that his mother (an avid swimmer in her own right) is starting a swim class with him this week.  The little baby wetsuit that he has to wear is insanely cute.

This one is borderline NSFW:

And the finale:

Comments

[Geoff Blankenmeyer]

Dude;

Yer gonna have sum serious splainin' to do when he turns 18.

[Jesurgislac]

"Son, just because millions of people have now seen what you look like nekkid, does NOT MEAN you will never get a date. ...you'll just have to avoid Internet dating."

(He's insanely cute, though.)

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, I figure he'll be paying be back in short order...

[Bernard Yomtov]

"Rub-dub-dub,
just relaxin' in the tub,
thinkin' everything was all right."

[Marty]

Despite how cute he is (one of the few truly unquestionable facts in life), I was wondering if you could comment on this interview with Peter Galbraith next week. Particularly the last question/answer:

10. You characterize the war in Afghanistan as one that cannot be won nor lost. Is this war a quagmire in your opinion?

Yes. We can't defeat the Taliban because we don't have a credible local partner. The Taliban, which is an entirely Pashtun movement, cannot take territory in the half of Afghanistan that is not Pashtun and they cannot take Kabul.

This seems to set up an eternal impasse, not unlike Korea, that we should be considering as the end game.

[crimelord]

Why does he need a wet suit?

[MaryL]

The wetsuit would be to preserve heat, maximize buoyancy and, potentially, to minimize effluence, I would guess. I saw a show about a child with a colostomy bag a couple of weeks ago, and the only way she was allowed in a public swimming pool was if she wore a wetsuit, just in case the bag came loose. I would think an infant who was not toilet trained yet may pose a similar risk.

We have to see that wetsuit picture now. These pictures are adorable, but the tease of more adorableness yet unseen is unbearable.

[Jesurgislac]

Why does he need a wet suit?

In most British swimming pools (which are mostly run by the local councils) babies (and children under two, I think) are only allowed in the water if they're wearing a guaranteed watertight nappy.

An ordinary wetsuit wouldn't work because wetsuits are permeable (though I can see how they'd help keep a colostomy bag in place).

P*ss can be dealt with using the pool's usual cleaning system, and besides, p*ss is not normally hazardous to health - certainly not when diluted with so many gallons of water.

But if anyone craps in the pool, no matter how small the amount, the pool has got to be completely drained and cleaned and refilled, which process is very expensive... much cheaper to enforce the watertight nappies.

[Hartmut]

The urine becomes problematic when it combines with the chlorine.

[Eric Martin]

Yeah, the wetsuit is mostly for heat, though it does add some buoyancy. Some pools require it. He has to wear water diapers as well, under the wetsuit.

Marty: I think Galbraith is right in many ways. I think the Taliban will be difficult to "defeat" in certain regions because in certain regions, the population is essentially Taliban.

I think it's also possible that the newly empowered, armed and funded coaltion formerly known as the Norther Alliance would be able to play the Taliban to a standstill - though Pakistan could put its finger on the scale somewhat.

I'm wary of endorsing a partition idea as an outsider, as we then become the focal point of blame on both sides of the divide. See, ie, anti-American animus in South Korea.

[Slartibartfast]

Epic cuteness, Eric. They're just heartmeltingly wonderful at that age.

This part, though, needed some linkeyness:

But if anyone craps in the pool, no matter how small the amount, the pool has got to be completely drained and cleaned

[Mike Schilling]

The Taliban, which is an entirely Pashtun movement, cannot take territory in the half of Afghanistan that is not Pashtun and they cannot take Kabul.

They did once. Assuming the Americans (and assorted allies) eventually leave, why not twice?

[Brett Bellmore]

"P*ss can be dealt with using the pool's usual cleaning system, and besides, p*ss is not normally hazardous to health - certainly not when diluted with so many gallons of water."

In fact, if you're out in the woods, and need to flush a wound, it's about the only thing you're going to have with you that's almost guaranteed to be sterile...

"But if anyone craps in the pool, no matter how small the amount, the pool has got to be completely drained and cleaned and refilled, which process is very expensive... much cheaper to enforce the watertight nappies."

:O

Over here we're a bit more sane on the subject, I guess: We just fish it out, and http://www.cdc.gov/healthyswimming/pdf/Fecal_Accident_Response_Recommendations_for_Pool_Staff.pdf>dose the pool with extra chlorine.

Do you have kids pooping out BSE? It would be hard to justify such extreme measures for anything less durable.

[Jesurgislac]

Here's what people who actually have to swim in the pool do when someone has a fecal accident, Brett. In particular, note:

First the CDC prescribes that a pool might have to be closed for a week, and then it tells you how to re-open it via superchlorination in twenty-five or thirty minutes? Scary, huh? Reminds me of EPA after 9/11: "The air at Ground Zero is fresh and pure and healthy! No worries, rescue workers!"

So, isocyanurates shmarunates. Where I work, a week's closure is the rule. We don't trust Washington!

It's not whether you're "a bit more sane", Brett: it's about whether you (a) know how many nasty diseases can be passed by someone crapping in the pool (b) whether you have an actual human concern for the people who are going to have to swim in the water.

...come to that, I've never known any pool in my locale have to be closed down due to fecal contamination, but I do know that all the public pools I've ever swum in had the same rules about babies having to have watertight nappies or not being allowed in the pool.

[Phil]

So, off the subject of feces, I went to my local library today to participate in a crossword puzzle contest. There were around 40 people, and the contest used four soon-to-be-published New York Times puzzles. (Will Shortz and the NYT actually help with these contests, which is pretty cool.) There were three rounds, with 20 minutes per round, after which the top three scorers would compete on the last puzzle for the top three prizes. Also, after the third round, the number four and five scorers would also receive prizes.

As it happened, there was a tie for fifth, so numbers 1-6 all got prizes. (The prize was a gift certificate to a local bookstore.)

I was 7th. Missed it by that much.

[CharlesWT]

"I was 7th. Missed it by that much."

As a result, did you use any cross words?

[Brett Bellmore]

I know how many nasty diseases can be passed by crapping in a pool, or for that matter, by shaking hands, not sterilizing door knobs before using them, breathing unfiltered air... This knowledge does not persuade me that OCD should be enacted into law.

The nasty diseases that can be passed by crapping into a pool, and not cleaned up by a few hours of super-chlorinization, are rather rare. One must have a sense of perspective in these things.

[Jesurgislac]

One must have a sense of perspective in these things.

That's nice, Brett, but I'll stay well away from any swimming pool you're in charge of.

[Hartmut]

Bathing (and living) in MOPP IV suits only ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

It's interesting, too, that this is an example of the free market in action:

Two pools, same size, same facilities.

One pool owner runs their pool on the basis that really serious diseases are so rare that it's simply not worth the bother to do more than superchlorinate the pool and no, never insist that babies wear watertights.

One pool owner runs their pool on the basis that the really serious diseases are so serious and so easily catchable via pool water that any hazard means the pool will be closed for a week, and yes, all children still in nappies MUST wear watertights.

First pool is probably cheaper to run. Gets more customers, especially poorer kids. Works fine until the day the water is contaminated and half the kids who swam in it are half-dead and a handful are dehydrated corpses.

Meanwhile the more responsible pool owner has always run it more expensively/more safely, made less profit, but none of their customers end up dead. Or the more responsible pool owner went bankrupt because every other pool owner in town was allowed to - and did - cut corners on safety, cut prices... and now health-conscious parents keep their kids out of the pool.

I don't know if the rule about de-contaminating pools is a local bylaw or a national health-and-safety law or a European safety standard: but if it's required by law, it means creepy pool owners who think that it's worth hazarding children's lives because hey, really bad diseases are so rare, can't make their creepy libertarian profit on the "free market" by undercutting safety costs.

But hey, what would a pro-lifer understand about valuing human life over profit?

[Brett Bellmore]

I see, you believe that, if somebody omits even one of the safety precautions you favor, they'll omit every one of them. Thus somebody who doesn't drain the pool when a feces is found, just orders everybody out, fishes it out, and super-chlorinates the pool for a few hours, won't require babies to wear swim diapers, either.

I guess that makes sense... If you assume that people only reach conclusions different from your own out of malign motives. Of course, that DOES seem to be one of your operating assumptions.

Meanwhile, we will continue, on this side of the Atlantic, to go the swim diaper/super-chlorination route, and I expect our public swimming pools will continue operate with a much higher availability, while not killing appreciably more people than British pools.

And, you know what? Swimming has health benefits...

"But hey, what would a pro-lifer understand about valuing human life over profit?"

But, hey, what would an advocate of institutionalized OCD understand about the Center for Disease Control, a government agency, providing recommendations which are followed by public, as well as commercial, pools? If you don't like it, the profit motive has to be behind it, right?

[Jesurgislac]

I'm sorry, Brett: if this were Friday and I was looking forward to a happy weekend I would be glad to continue arguing with you about how you would run a swimming pool if you had one. But it's Monday lunchtime where I am, so I think I will just let you further imagine your fictional pool and its imaginary, poo-soaked waters in which people pay you to swim... while I go have a nice, hygienic baked potato, grown and cooked according to European Health and Safety standards. Not very libertarian, no doubt, but mmmmdelicious.

[Slartibartfast]

As amazing as it is that Brett and Jesurgislac have hijacked this insanely cute post to argue about correct pool sanitation, Jesurgislac cranks it up to 11 with:

But hey, what would a pro-lifer understand about valuing human life over profit?

Yep: every Internet thread will, eventually, wind up either with Nazis or abortion. Or, triple Internet bonus: both.

[John Thullen]

I think I'll skip my morning swim.

I was going to make a pun about Eric's cute baby (in this thread apparently) having a face that could launch a thousand ... oh, never mind.

The most libertarian river in the world is the Ganges.

Imagine John Galt with severe dysentery.

Actual dysentery, not the verbal kind his creator gave him.

[judson]

Ok, I have run a public pool and I taught a mother/infant swim class.

Public pools are not clean, especially high population pools. They are in fact a very delicate chemistry based test tube writ large. But, they also are a a lot of fun and there's the rub. Water circulation/replacement is better than chemical treatment but it's a huge waste of water. I tend to stay away from them now and prefer fresh/salt water swimming.

Babies younger than 3 months have quite a bit of amphibian in them and need to be taught basically nothing. What I did was teach the mom's not to panic..it's their panic that freaks the kids out. My mom was a lifeguard and pregnant with me. She had me in the water at about a week old and I've never recalled ever not being a swimmy-thing.

[doretta]

Just one caveat about babies and swimming. Some babies tend to swallow a lot of water when their heads are underwater. That can be very dangerous for a baby--it's much easier for them than for an adult to swallow enough water screw up their blood chemistry to a dangerours extent. Tell mama to keep an eye out for that problem, would you, Eric?

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti, I was going to say it wasn't fair to blame me for Brett wanting to argue about pool sanitation.... but,m yeah, if I hadn't responded to his assholery, he couldn't have had the argument he wanted, so.