Re: [RML] Shipping in hot weather (plus OT comment)

Wright Huntley (huntley1 at home.com)
Fri, 13 Jul 2001 08:23:10 -0700

Carvi Shamsid-Deen wrote:
>
> Do any of you ship fish during these 90-100 degree days in the US? If so,
> how do you pack? I've looked at using a cold pack in a styro box but it
> seems they would make the fish too cold.

Yes, I do it, but some extra precautions are called for.

I use thicker-wall styro medical shippers, with a fitted outer cardboard
box. That reduces heat transfer rate in or out. Regular fish boxes (called
"Florida Boxes" in the US) are too thin. Check your vet or local hospital
oncology dept. for really good containers with 2"+ walls. They are delighted
to recycle them, rather than send to a land fill.

I like very little water and much air in the bags, so that leaves too little
thermal mass, sometimes. Using a "Blue-Ice" or equivalent gel device can be
useful, but put it in at *room temperature*, and recognize it will increase
the shipping cost a bit. Pack so it can't bash around and beat on the fish
bags, too. Heat flow in or out (calories per minute) depends on the
difference in temperature inside and out and wall insulation. It takes a
calorie to heat a gram (1cc) of water one degree C. If you have more thermal
mass (grams), and thicker wall container, the rise (or drop) in internal
temperature will be slower, in direct proportion. The room-temp. "cold" pack
can be useful. Regular bags with extra water work just as well at lower
cost. Send some cultures or plants in them.

There is no substitute for being sure the package does not sit out in the
sun after delivery, BTW. Good communication can prevent that and labelling
can help a bit.

Which brings me to my "Scotch and Water Diet."

A shot of whiskey contains, at most, 50 calories. Add it to a tall (200cc)
glass of water with melting ice, which will be (by definition) at 0 degrees
C.

Your body must heat that water to near body temperature, before releasing it
-- say 35C to make the arithmetic simple. That means you must give up, to
the water, 200X35=7000 calories.

Hence, the 50 calories input is offset by 7000 going out, for a net loss of
6950 calories. This is why whiskey is so much less devastating to the
waistline than beer. ;-)

Cheers,

Wright

-- 
Wright Huntley,  Fremont CA, USA,  510 494-8679     huntley1 at home.com


In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated.


              http://environmental.networkroom.com/