Talk:Rip current

message: The lifeguard page linked says "The United States Lifesaving Association estimates that the annual number of deaths due to rip currents on our nation's beaches exceeds 100", while the wikipedia page says 1000 deaths/year.  Presumably this should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.227.93 (talk • contribs) 
:Yes, 1000 deaths, or even 100 are far too many. We should we everything possible to change this situation and make more swimmers aware of the dangers of entering the water! Ewlyahoocom 01:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comment 

message: * Undertow is a misnomer for a rip current, sort of like calling a tornado a twister (but worse..).  The reference of the phrase "undertow" to the phoneme of a rip current is discouraged.  71.200.92.220 01:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undertow

message: Not only does the article lack a section on undertow, but in one place the article says a rip current is "not to be confused with an undertow", then later it says, "a rip occurring under the water, instead of on top — an undertow". The first statement implies they are mutually exclusive terms, and the second implies that undertows are rip currents. 198.70.193.2 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Contradicts Self 

message: I added a brief paragraph explaining the rip current mechanism in terms of radiation stress. Jmkstrat 00:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes and occurrence

message: I think that the third paragraph under Dangers should be deleted, as it is redundant and unnecessary, and appears to be taken from a news article and is not written in encyclopedic style. MHKathmandu 22:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: Shouldn't there be something about how to get out of a rip current?  I don't see why it's been repeatedly erased since it's really the only useful knowledge applicable to the real world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.23.136 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I think it would fall foul of WP:NOTHOWTO  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And would that advice be to tread water? Fred Talk 14:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should, because that information could save a life. Hanxu9 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Quite correct. The information can easily be included as a direct corollary of the nature of a rip current. It is unnecessary to distort perfectly natural material in legalistic obeisance to rules that lose their relevance out of context. JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: How to Get Out of a Rip Current

message: The results of new research will soon be published. Fred Talk 14:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New research

message: The term Rip current here stated is incorrect.  There is a major difference between a riptide and hence the undertoe and something called Rip current.  Currents move perpendicular to the shore line and flow only in one direction.  The term 'rip current' is now being used by weather forcasters and media reporting services and is wrong.  Where the term is incorrectly used, the user should be corrected so that organizations such as the US Lifesaving Association will not provide inaccurate information.  The swells come in and the undertoe goes out and the current runs against the surf!!!  Please get is right.  There is actually no such thing as a rip current.
Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.223.29 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note, but your description is hard to follow. Invertzoo (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: Ref. #7 has crapped out. 
TheoThoughts (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref #7