Talk:Diving weighting system

Merger

See Talk:Weight belt--Rossheth | Talk to me 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done--Rossheth | Talk to me 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

SCUBA bias

Diving weights are used by freedivers too. The article, and especially the introduction would be far better if it wasn't so SCUBA-centric. For example, the intro currently suggests weight belts are used to make a diver negatively bouyant and counteracted with air, when in fact freedivers use weight to produce negative bouyancy at a particular depth with no air vest at all. I'm afraid I know next to nothing about SCUBA and nothing like experienced enough in freediving to get stuck in to this article without fear of messing things up. I'll help where I can if someone else can take a lead in editing though. Jack of Many (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ready for B-class?

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. Fairly well referenced. Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Looks OK. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. Looks OK. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. . Adequately illustrated. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK. Y

Comments

• by • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. There are not many inline references, but the material is pretty basic and uncontroversial. I can look up references if there is anything that a reviewer feels should be referenced. Please use inline "citation needed" templates to indicate exactly what you feel needs verification.
2. The article complies with requirement 2, most aspects of the topic are covered adequately.
3. The article has a defined structure appropriate to the topic. Lead section is adequate and summarizes the article.
4. Prose is clear and grammatical, without obvious spelling errors.
5. Illustrations and diagrams are adequate for the purpose.
6. Language seems understandable without specialist knowledge. If there are any terms that need explanation, please mark with "clarify" template.

Looks good for B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Is lead toxicity worth discussing here?

(Moved from User_talk:DMahalko to here.)

Hi DMahalko, Thanks for helping to expand the content on Diving weighting system, and particularly for adding the references. I see that you have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, so could I ask you to please use the usual methods and formats for citations. Also, the article subject is Diving weighting systems, not toxicity of heavy metals. I accept that lead toxicity in swimming pools and the environment is peripherally within the scope of the subject, but details about lead poisoning and acceptable exposure limits, in my opinion, are not, there is an adequate link to the appropriate article on lead poisoning. Nor in my opinion, does the reasonable scope of the subject include the hazards to amateur weight casters of lead fumes, as the article is not about casting lead. It seems to me that you differ on this point, so I would like you to explain your view, so I can understand it. Then there is the matter of alternative materials which are proposed, but as far as I know, with the exception of iron/steel, and occasionally brass or other copper alloys, are not actually used for diving weights. Do you have any evidence that anyone actually uses tungsten dive weights, or has used them, or is seriously proposing their use? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

None of this is "peripheral". At this time, virtually all weights used anywhere are made out of lead, and lead has been clearly identified as a persisting toxin for wildlife and humans, so the issue of divers potentially spreading heavy metal contamination from their dive equipment is definitely topical here.

Lead casting is on-topic because casting your own lead weights is a common activity for divers trying to save a buck, by recycling lead from other sources.

Regarding the discussion of alternatives, lead has already been banned by states and countries for use in other recreational activities such as bullets for game hunting and target shooting. Lead weights for fishing lures have also been banned in some states for similar reasons.

Use of steel, bismuth, and tungsten has been discussed as alternatives by divers on various Internet forums. Just do a web search for bismuth or tungsten dive weights and you will find them immediately. Bismuth is already being used as a substitute in both ammunition and fishing in the states where lead has been banned. Random web examples:

http://www.huntingwithnonlead.org/about2015.html

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/loons/non-lead_fishing_tackle_suppliers_updated_may_2010.pdf

I am currently considering taking up SCUBA diving myself, but if possible I want to avoid all this and use stainless steel weights. They are impossible to find. After spending hours and hours searching the web, Amazon, and other sources, at this time, I conclude that there are no retail sources for any dive weighting material other than lead, so the issues of lead and its toxicity are very much on topic as no other option is commercially available. The only other alternative to minimize the environmental contamination risks appears to be the fully plastic-molded solid lead weights.

Lead shot weights are clearly identified to readily shed large visible gray clouds of lead particulate into the water around them after being in dry storage. So this only occurs in storage? No, the abrasion is likely continuous while diving and you are moving in the water as the bags shift on your body, but the lead cloud is continually being flushed away in a trail behind the diver, and so it is not seen. How many hundreds to thousands of sea creatures in popular reef and tropical dive destinations are potentially being poisoned by the cloud trail of lead left behind by divers? It's insane.

In homes with lead paint, people are extremely worried that their child could merely swallow a few chips of paint (which contain tiny amounts of lead) and potentially get poisoned, yet divers are routinely releasing widely dispersing clouds of lead particulate from lead shot weights. How can this be justified as safe and appropriate? The only current justification for using lead is that it is cheap, or free if you cast your own.

I think it is irresponsible for recreational and professional divers, who are also frequently environmentalists and conservationists, to be so cavalier about poisoning the waters where they dive.

--DMahalko (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And User:Pbsouthwood, Speaking of my edit history on Wikipedia, I have similar questions about your own edit history and background, and your interest in this article. What precisely does "PB" mean in your username? To me I believe it indicates the scientific symbol for the element lead, and you are a diver yourself so clearly this is a topic of interest to you.

You seem like a smart person, so if you don't like the "quality" of my cites for lead poisoning, I bet you could do just as well finding better ones yourself.

But I am of the opinion you probably have an agenda to protect your sport's / hobby's image and whitewash these health and safety issues that I am raising out of this article, and sweep them away where they cannot be noticed or be easily found on the web.

I think it is only a matter of time before attention is focused on other forms of recreation and industry that use lead merely for ballast, such as free diving and SCUBA diving, and these too will likely be subject to similar bans and use of ballast alternatives to reduce environmental contamination sources.

I realize the thoroughly analyzed and carefully discussed document about lead weights left in the child's wading pool is very damaging to the generally held belief of the so-called safety of lead dive weights used in swimming pools. If lead is so non-reactive as is claimed, then lead diving weights left sitting in a pool for years should not be a problem, yet these weights poisoned that kid's pool water to over 6000 times the FDA limit on lead in drinking water after just a few weeks. That is insanely high.

So if your agenda is to bury these toxicity and environmental hazards, then it is clearly in your best interest to minimize that paragraph and cite, cut it down and remove the citation notes like you did, and maybe even suppress or remove it if you can find a good enough justification.

Or just remove the toxicity discussion completely and just don't discuss any of this at all, as you are now proposing here.

-- DMahalko (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

DMahalko This talk page is a suitable place to discuss any content or proposed content for the article, so yes, I think lead toxicity is worth discussing here.

I will try ro work my way through your comments systematically.

"None of this is "peripheral". At this time, virtually all weights used anywhere are made out of lead, and lead has been clearly identified as a persisting toxin for wildlife and humans, so the issue of divers potentially spreading heavy metal contamination from their dive equipment is definitely topical here."

Can you produce reliable sources to support this argument? Specifically that diving weights are a significant pollution vector. If so I accept your argument, if not, it is original research and inadmissible.

"Lead casting is on-topic because casting your own lead weights is a common activity for divers trying to save a buck, by recycling lead from other sources."

Even if you can provide reliable sources that this is a common activity , it may remain out of scope as the article is not about the manufacture of lead weights it is about the use of diving weights, which happen to be made from lead. I am open to logical persuasion, but please keep the suggestions within the accepted conventions for content of Wikipedia articles.

" Regarding the discussion of alternatives, lead has already been banned by states and countries for use in other recreational activities such as bullets for game hunting and target shooting. Lead weights for fishing lures have also been banned in some states for similar reasons."

Wikipedia is not a platform for advocating change, if that is what you wish to do. If not, please explain your point.

": Use of steel, bismuth, and tungsten has been discussed as alternatives by divers on various Internet forums. Just do a web search for bismuth or tungsten dive weights and you will find them immediately. Bismuth is already being used as a substitute in both ammunition and fishing in the states where lead has been banned. Random web examples:"

I will look at your examples before commenting further on this point.

I have looked at the websites, They show that non-lead substitutes are used for bullets and fishing weights. No mention is made of diving weights. Divers discussing alternative materials on an internet forum is evidence that divers discuss alternative weight materials, not that they have been used in practice to a notable extent.

": I am currently considering taking up SCUBA diving myself, but if possible I want to avoid all this and use stainless steel weights. They are impossible to find. After spending hours and hours searching the web, Amazon, and other sources, at this time, I conclude that there are no retail sources for any dive weighting material other than lead, so the issues of lead and its toxicity are very much on topic as no other option is commercially available. The only other alternative to minimize the environmental contamination risks appears to be the fully plastic-molded solid lead weights."

I am not surprised they are impossible to find, as they would be very much more expensive than lead. I have also never seen them, therefore it is not unreasonable to assume they may not exist, and are thus not really suitable for inclusion in the article, as it is primarily about real things. I have seen mild steel used as weights, and cast iron, but not often, and usually for special purposes where large weights are needed, like on diving bells, though once or twice I have seen divers using them for personal dive weights. I have no references. Unfortunately I probably live in a different country to you so I can't help you with suggestions for alternative commercially available weight systems.

" Lead shot weights are clearly identified to readily shed large visible gray clouds of lead particulate into the water around them after being in dry storage. So this only occurs in storage? No, the abrasion is likely continuous while diving and you are moving in the water as the bags shift on your body, but the lead cloud is continually being flushed away in a trail behind the diver, and so it is not seen. How many hundreds to thousands of sea creatures in popular reef and tropical dive destinations are potentially being poisoned by the cloud trail of lead left behind by divers? It's insane."

I have not seen this myself, do you have a reliable reference? Are there studies showing this to be a problem? Particularly that this is a significant source of lead pollution. I do not know, I remain neutral on this point due to lack of evidence.

": In homes with lead paint, people are extremely worried that their child could merely swallow a few chips of paint (which contain tiny amounts of lead) and potentially get poisoned, yet divers are routinely releasing widely dispersing clouds of lead particulate from lead shot weights. How can this be justified as safe and appropriate? The only current justification for using lead is that it is cheap, or free if you cast your own."

Again, do you have a reliable reference that this is a problem? It may well be, but I have no evidence. We are not permitted to speculate or hypothesize and pass it off as fact. That is not considered encyclopaedic.

"I think it is irresponsible for recreational and professional divers, who are also frequently environmentalists and conservationists, to be so cavalier about poisoning the waters where they dive."

If this is a significant source of lead pollution I will agree with you. So far I have not seen convincing evidence. I know a large number of diving scientists, ecologists, biologists, environmentalists included, and none of them have mentioned diving weights as an environmental problem.

"And User:Pbsouthwood, Speaking of my edit history on Wikipedia, I have similar questions about your own edit history and background, and your interest in this article. What precisely does "PB" mean in your username? To me I believe it indicates the scientific symbol for the element lead, and you are a diver yourself so clearly this is a topic of interest to you."

Ask away, If your questions are civil and reasonable I will probably answer them in the same spirit. PB are my initials. You may have noticed that my signature gives my first name. The fact that lead has been allocated the same pair of letters is a coincidence which I do not think my parents were aware of at the time they named me. As an engineer, all engineering materials are interesting to me, lead is no exception, and as a diver and a diving instructor, the materials and equipment used in diving are of interest to me. This is not unusual.

"You seem like a smart person, so if you don't like the "quality" of my cites for lead poisoning, I bet you could do just as well finding better ones yourself."

Thank you for your kind words. It is not the quality of your references I would like improved, just the formatting of the citation. I may be able to find better ones if I an convinced that it is worth the effort, but as a general principle, if someone wants to put some content on Wikipedia which is challenged, it is up to them to find a suitable reference. I have done this many times, and it seems that you have too. This is normal procedure.

I must break here due to a small emergency, Back later. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, back to finish.

" But I am of the opinion you probably have an agenda to protect your sport's / hobby's image and whitewash these health and safety issues that I am raising out of this article, and sweep them away where they cannot be noticed or be easily found on the web."

As you say, it is your opinion. Not much I can do about that. However you are mistaken. Since I have the personal knowledge of my own motivations, I can say that with confidence. Whether you believe it is not a thing I can fix. You are free to be wrong and hold that opinion. My actual agenda is to help create a good, balanced neutral article on the subject of the article title. I make no money out of diving, though I do spend a lot of time and money on it and associated matters.

" I think it is only a matter of time before attention is focused on other forms of recreation and industry that use lead merely for ballast, such as free diving and SCUBA diving, and these too will likely be subject to similar bans and use of ballast alternatives to reduce environmental contamination sources."

As and when such attention is focused, and reliable references become available, the article may be altered to reflect these changes, within the scope of the subject defined by the title. So far, this has not been shown to be the case. You are free to try do do so as long as you follow the terms of use of Wikipedia and the accepted procedures of the community.

" I realize the thoroughly analyzed and carefully discussed document about lead weights left in the child's wading pool is very damaging to the generally held belief of the so-called safety of lead dive weights used in swimming pools. If lead is so non-reactive as is claimed, then lead diving weights left sitting in a pool for years should not be a problem, yet these weights poisoned that kid's pool water to over 6000 times the FDA limit on lead in drinking water after just a few weeks. That is insanely high."

On the face of it that appears to be so in this particular case. However, a large amount of relevant data is not included in the report, and I do not consider that the conclusions reached for that particular case are necessarily relevant for all uses of lead weights. For example, the pH of the pool is not mentioned, nor was an assay reported of the specific composition of those weights. I know from personal experience that lead weights left in the sea or fresh water are usually not much corroded after longer periods of months to several years. It is not good science to generalise too much from a single case, particularly where much of the relevant data is not available.

"So if your agenda is to bury these toxicity and environmental hazards, then it is clearly in your best interest to minimize that paragraph and cite, cut it down and remove the citation notes like you did, and maybe even suppress or remove it if you can find a good enough justification."

'If'.

Your argument fails if your premise is unproven, and your premise is ungrounded.

" Or just remove the toxicity discussion completely and just don't discuss any of this at all, as you are now proposing here."

You appear to misinterpret my comments. I have not proposed removing the toxicity discussion, I proposed giving it due weight and relevance to the subject matter. I have no objection to any material that is within the reasonable scope of the article as indicated by the title. I also have no objection to you creating an article with a different scope providing it falls within the criteria for a Wikipedia article. I will however, probably oppose changing the scope of this article away from the purpose, function and use of diving weighting systems to concentrate on heavy metal toxicity.

Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 23:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead paint in homes, paint chip hazards. Since this is a talk page, I will not do inline citations. I bet you have heard of this thing called Google, it is useful for answering such questions yourself rather than whining and complaining that I don't cite every sentence I write. If you want more scholarly answers, try Google Scholar. But I think you are just being obstinate. To get you started, try this one: New York State, What Home Owners Need to Know About Removing Lead-Based Paint https://www.health.ny.gov/publications/2502/ -- Before the 1970s, household paint often contained lead. As lead paint ages, it can chip or crumble into dust. Exposure to lead-paint dust or chips can cause serious health problems. Children and pregnant women are at higher risk. So, if you live in or own an older home, you need to know how to protect yourself and others.

Lead paint is not used in diving weights (to the best of my knowledge) therefore the toxicity of lead paint is not relevant to an article about diving weights. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead cloud shedding after dry storage is a well known effect, but I expect no one has actually done any motion studies of lead shot in active use. I will look around. But since lead blocks radiation, it can probably be directly visualized with a clear-walled hydrodynamic flume tank of flowing water, a large fluorescent screen on one side, and a broad beam low energy X-ray source on the other. (If any environmental pollution researcher reading this wants to take this on, be my guest.)

It may be well known, but is it well referenced as an environmental problem?• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I expect diving weights are no more a significant pollution vector than the tiny lead sinkers for fishing and which sometimes get lost or swallowed by organisms. And yet lead have been banned for fishing anyway. The prospects do not look good.

This may happen. (though I doubt it). When it does, it will probably make the headlines somewhere and will then be citable. At that time it can be added to the article. Until then it seems that we have only hypothesis, which is not citable unless published somewhere more reliable than a blog site.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I suppose there should be a second consideration for divers in trouble: don't drop your weights or you will leave behind a persistent toxin source in the marine environment that will persist until the entire mass has completely dissolved and pollution hundreds of cubic meters of water and environment.

I doubt it, but you are free to speculate on a talk page.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-- DMahalko (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Since we are playing the citation game, I can basically throw this right back at you and make similar demands.

Please provide citations for your claims that lead diving weights are harmless to the environment and aquatic creatures.

Please provide reliable sources of testing procedures performed on lead shot and solid lead weights to verify that they pose no toxicity risks for other swimmers in either open water or in swimming pools.

Please provide citations that handling of lead weights, is completely harmless and that contamination of food or drink never occurs

Can you provide a citation that handwashing is sufficient to remove all lead particulate from your arms and hands after handling lead shot mesh bags?

-- DMahalko (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

By all means insert {{citation needed}} after any such claims in the article. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe if you were to explain what you are trying to achieve we could arrive at a solution. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You are claiming that the toxicity and safety issues are minor and should be removed from this article. Provide evidence for your own claims.

No, I am mainly stating that some of your claims are not sufficiently relevant to the article subject to justify inclusion. This does not need citation, it is following Wikipedia policy.

If lead weights are either no hazard or an insignificant hazard to swimming pools, then prove it. Where are your citations? Simply pooh-poohing my own very damning cite with your questions about pH and so forth is again trying to whitewash and minimize the issue.

I made no such claim, I pointed out that your references support only a limited claim of significant hazard, and only in swimming pools, and not necessarily in all swimming pools. If you wish to make assertions of more extensive hazard this should be supported by evidence directly supporting such claims. I made no claims as to actual extent of hazard, therefore do not need to provide evidence.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

If bare uncoated lead diving weights are so safe in swimming pools as you believe, then provide thoroughly documented citations by experts to back your own claim, and be sure it covers pH and similar accessory details like you now demand of the cite I provided.

I made no claims regarding belief that lead diving weights are safe in swimming pools, and have not claimed any particular belief regarding severity of lead contamination hazard in swimming pools in general. I remain unpersuaded either way due to lack of evidence regarding the full range of swimming pools. I accept the findings of CDC that some lead weights in some swimming pools produce highly elevated lead concentrations, but this is not conclusive evidence about pools of other kinds or all diving weights.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

-- DMahalko (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A quick search for rates of corrosion of lead in seawater came up with 0.2 to 0.5 Mils (Mil= 1/1000 inch) per year (0.05 to 0.127mm per year if you prefer) for Pure lead, Antimonial lead and Tellurium lead alloys (no significant diffrences between them) At this rate a block 1" thick would take between 500 and 2000 years to completely corrode away. Abrasion would speed this up, and overgrowth by fouling organisms or burial in sediments might slow it down. Yes, I have seen lead weights coated with encrusting coralline algae, but I don't have a reliable reference. Another reference indicates that lead corrodes about 4 times faster in seawater than in fresh water. This suggests that the properties of swimming pool water and/or composition of the weights may have a critical influence on corrosion rate. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Diving weighting system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621090205/http://ygraine.membrane.com:80/enterhtml/live/scuba/products.html to http://ygraine.membrane.com/enterhtml/live/scuba/products.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415175444/http://www.mares.com:80/lab_detail.php?id=73&region=ALL to http://www.mares.com/lab_detail.php?id=73&region=ALL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diving weighting system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005180109/http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l106_media_diving_projects.pdf to http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l106_media_diving_projects.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Diving weighting system

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diving weighting system's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Bardy2005":

• From Scuba diving: Bardy, Erik; Mollendorf, Joseph; Pendergast, David (21 October 2005). "Thermal conductivity and compressive strain of foam neoprene insulation under hydrostatic pressure". Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 38 (20): 3832–3840. Bibcode:2005JPhD...38.3832B. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/38/20/009.
• From Wetsuit: Bardy, Erik; Mollendorf, Joseph; Pendergast, David (October 21, 2005). "Thermal conductivity and compressive strain of foam neoprene insulation under hydrostatic pressure". Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. 38 (20): 3832–3840. doi:10.1088/0022-3727/38/20/009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)