Since "The Korean" (the author of the linked blog) is not an aviation expert either, but is a well-known cultural apologist (see his (admittedly quite well-written) post rationalizing fan death, a widely held Korean superstition: http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/01/fan-death-is-real.htm...), I would give Gladwell the benefit of the doubt for now.
Well, I'm glad "The Korean" didn't resort to a simple "Sorry, you've missed the point" response like he did towards other commenters. But I really like Gladwell's response.
FYI: Here is Gladwell's response to "The Korean"'s response to Gladwell:
I actually find "The Korean's" posts on these matters to be pretty irritating. Culture is a collection of ideas, and like all ideas, they can be bad sometimes, and regardless they are all subject to criticism. While he claims to understand this, he seems hellbent on showing that such negative cultural outliers (if and when they exist), will have "negligible" effect (which he doesn't seem to realize is a totally arbitrary claim; how did he arrive at "negligible" vs, I don't know, any other quantifiable amount). The fact is, the effects can't be measured, but a case showing non-negligible effects can still be made.
My scientific instinct is to think this idea of "fan death" is ridiculous. But the US EPA is not helping:
In
these conditions, portable electric fans provide a cooling effect by evaporating sweat. The
increased circulation of hot air and increased sweat evaporation can, however, speed the
onset of heat-attributable conditions (e.g., heat exhaustion).http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf
EDIT: On further reflection I think his claim that 90F/31C ambient air with a household fan blowing on you (because it makes you feel cooler) is comparable in lethality to 140F/61C is outright absurd.
That Fan Death article really cuts into his credibility. There's a lot of rationalizing going on there. Especially when he rhetorically asks something like:
> Does getting the cause for Fan Death wrong mean Koreans live without critical thinking?
Who was making that accusation?! (Answer: basically nobody)
">This pamphlet from the EPA, at pages 49 and 51, clearly states the hazard of using portable electric fans during high heat. It specifically says “Portable electric fans can … increase the circulation of hot air, which increases thermal stress and health risks[,]” and “DON’T use a portable electric fan in a closed room without windows or doors open to the outside.”
>If the EPA tried to explain random deaths as being caused by fans when they weren't actually? Yeah. It would.
How exactly do you know that "they weren't actually"? Do you have an autopsy that states otherwise? [1]
That the EPA marks such use of fans as increasing "thermal stress and health risks" is an indicator that there ARE health risks associated with the use of fans. If those risks can involve death is up to dispute (without further analysis), but it's a first step towards this hypothesis.
You characterizing them as "random deaths" is a circular argument. It pressuposses what it's supposed to prove. I'd rather go with science and choose my words carefully.
[1] Oh, and to prevent any reading comprehension challenged idiot (tons of them on the intertubes) that would jump and shout: "the lack of an autopsy is not proof that they were indeed caused by fans", I never implied such. I only imply the reverse: that without an autopsy we cannot say they WERENT caused by it.
Donwnvotes? It seems some people hate the scientific method, and only pay lip service to science as some kind of religion ("who needs experiments and proofs").
