# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In order for us to understand why people enjoy extreme sports, it is vital for you to understand what extreme sports are; the background, why they are called extreme and why they are categorize on the basis of enjoyment styles.

In recent years, the term extreme sports has evolved on grand scale. It can be categorized into three main types: Air, Land and Water. Now you'll start unleashing, how they work and why do people enjoy them.
These extreme sports are often subject of debates based of the fact that how a sport is called extreme. Often popular in younger-than-average crowd (though not mandatory), these sports are not inducted or sanctioned by schools. These sports are practiced mostly on individual level, while in many cases professional coaching can also be acquired.

Now we tell you the secret recipe of their buzz:

Control and physics: The reason why people enjoy these sports are that they are normally played, exercised or practiced in free or uncontrolled environment like base jumping and sky diving. It means while traditional athletes play in controlled environment like fields and gyms. Extreme athletes have to operate and display their skills in free-flowing natural environment. For this reason the aspects and understanding of laws of physics and how to apply and use them are really crucial for success.

Thrill: This is the single most attractive factor in people's interest for extreme sports. The adrenaline rush is what differentiates it from any other type of sports. The thrill that is derived in extreme sports is highest. The athletes are fully exposed and at the mercy of direct danger. The catch is how to maintain composure and apply skills when it is in extreme scenario. Extreme sports are also widely condemned for the same reason. As many don't think it is a game to put one's self in harm's way with full throttle, without understanding the intensity of consequences.

Pushing The Limits: Extreme sports as the name goes is about pushing the limits. The balance and control of regular instincts application is tried in the highest pressure scenario. The response, nerves and the grip over the un-controllable is the main zeal why people who play or watch, enjoy it.

Man against Nature: As we mentioned earlier that they are about natural elements- Air, Water and Land. These games are loved because the natural elements react to human extreme or instincts. The passion of man to overcome the natural barriers is an addiction for these athletes and spectators. Many a time these overtures have dire impacts, but the fear of danger is the prime motivator to excel in its skill.

Some of the mainstream extreme sports are base jumping, bungy jumping, sky diving, gliding, extreme skiing, mountain biking, cliff-diving, scuba diving, wind surfing. No matter what extreme sport you may enjoy know your limits, or you'll be pushed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In order for us to understand why people enjoy extreme sports, it is vital for you to understand what extreme sports are; the background, why they are called extreme ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apollo was the NASA program that resulted in American astronauts’ making a total of 11 spaceflights and walking on the moon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Choose Your AdventureWelcome to the Outdoors section of Exploration Junkie! Exploration often implies various outdoor activities and sports - on land, in the water, or in the air. And of course, it's also a lot of fun. Develop your outdoor skills now and take your outside experiences to a whole new level!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Teaching Tools | Resources for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore Scholastic Teaching Tools for teaching resources, printables, book lists, and more. Enhance your classroom experience with expert advice!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fabien Cousteau is leading a team of scientists, educators, and filmmakers this month on the longest-ever expedition in a stationary habitat beneath the sea. The project, called Mission 31, aims to build awareness about the need to protect the ocean and honors a historic expedition 50 years ago by Cousteau's famous grandfather, explorer Jacques Cousteau.

Launched on June 1, Mission 31 is a 31-day, privately funded expedition at Florida International University's Medina Aquarius Reef Base.

The habitat lies 63 feet (19 meters) below the surface in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Windows look out on swimming fish and deep coral reefs. (See " Stunning Underwater Photos for World Ocean Day.")

The team is studying climate change, ocean acidification, plastics pollution, decline of biodiversity, and predator-prey relationships. Cousteau and his colleagues are also making a documentary film and have participated in more than 50 educational Skype sessions with schools, aquariums, and museums in the United States, Canada, Australia, Kenya, and the Czech Republic.

Guests who have dived to Aquarius for short visits with the Mission 31 team include National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Sylvia Earle, Greg Stone of Conservation International, marine artist Wyland, actors Adrian Grenier and Ian Somerhalder, and retired NASA astronaut Clay Anderson.

"Jacques Cousteau was my hero, and I believe Fabien is following closely in his flippers," Wyland said in a statement. "Fabien is sharing the beauty of our undersea world with everyone and inviting artists, scientists, and all of us on this epic mission that will help us all have a better connection with our water world."

On June 11, Jacques Cousteau's birthday, Florida Governor Rick Scott called to wish the team well. The members also celebrated by wearing red caps, as Cousteau often did, and eating French pastries and "red cap" cookies.

Aquarius is the world's only underwater marine laboratory. It measures 43 by 20 by 16.5 feet (13 by 6 by 5 meters) and weighs approximately 81 tons. It has six bunk beds, hot water, a mini-kitchen, climate control, computers, and wireless Internet.

Fifty years ago, Jacques Cousteau led a 30-day expedition underwater aboard a habitat called Conshelf II in the Red Sea off Sudan. He and his team proved that "saturation diving," which means living and working at a pressure higher than on the surface, was possible for long periods. Mission 31 is 30 feet (9 meters) deeper than Conshelf II.

National Geographic spoke with Fabien Cousteau, as well as scientists Liz Magee and Grace Young, inside Aquarius via Skype. Magee is a research diver with Northeastern University; Young graduated in May from MIT with a degree in mechanical and ocean engineering, with a specialty in marine robotics.
What was the impact of Jacques Cousteau's Conshelf II expedition 50 years ago, and how did it inspire your current mission?
Cousteau: My grandfather was a pioneer in building underwater habitat. He and his team spent 30 days gathering scientific data, on both the ecosystems around their habitat and the physiological effects of working underwater. We are going one day longer than that expedition in a symbolic nod to honor them and to point the way toward future ocean exploration.

I grew up with a grandfather who was a visionary, a philosopher, and a wonderful storyteller. He was also very connected with young people. Being the oldest grandchild I got to live 30 years of my life with him. I've been on expeditions since a young age and have been immersed in that world.

Conshelf II has always been one of those legendary stories I kept in the back of my mind. When Sylvia Earle did her Mission Aquarius [in July 2012] to highlight the importance of ocean habitats, I realized I wanted to live the dream of becoming an aquanaut. And I realized what an amazing platform it is for education.
You are underwater in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and President Obama just announced plans for a huge new marine sanctuary around remote islands in the Pacific. How important are these protected areas?
Cousteau: Being a third-generation explorer, it brings me a lot of hope to see that the U.S. is leading by example. The Obama administration is protecting swaths of ocean that really need protecting. I look forward to seeing it come about and being enforced.

We desperately need protected areas around the world so we can rebuild the natural bank account that we all need.

Magee: If more people were exposed to the wonders of the sea, then everyone would be all for protecting it. That's why part of our mission is exposing people who don't normally think about the ocean to how vital it is to our livelihoods and our lives.

Young: I find it incredibly frightening that we have the technology to completely destroy the ocean in my lifetime, but marine protected areas are hope spots, as Sylvia Earle calls them.
Now that the mission is more than half over, what has it been like to live and work underwater for days at a time?
Cousteau: Today [June 19] is day 19 of the mission, which makes it officially the longest mission that has happened in the Aquarius habitat. We have another 13 days to go.

It's now been a few days since Liz and Grace joined us. They switched out with Andy [Shantz] and Adam [Zenone], two students from Florida International University. They've become surface dwellers again. We also have a team of 36 people at the surface, both scientists and support staff.
What have you learned about the physiological and psychological effects of living long-term underwater, at high pressure and without the sun?
Cousteau: We wear bands that monitor light and our activity, and we are doing a survey of how we sleep. We're working long days down here. At first we got up at 4:30 every morning and went to bed at 11. Now things have slowed down a little bit, and we're getting up at 6 but still going to bed around 11. We're studying the effects of being down here.
How did the decompression go for the first team-Adam and Andy-that left after the first part of the mission?
Cousteau: The decompression process takes about 18 and a half hours; it's lengthy. But living at saturation allows us to go diving as long as we want.

Magee: When we were getting ready to go down, we saw Adam and Andy come up. They said they were sad that it was over, but they were really excited to see the sun.
How does the saturation diving work?
Magee: After 24 hours of being down here, we are considered fully saturated, or fully nitrogen loaded. So we have more nitrogen dissolved in our blood [because of the pressure from the surrounding water].

That means we can stay out in the water diving for up to nine hours. It's such a unique opportunity, and one of the things I was most excited about, to be able to dive for so long.

Cousteau: When astronaut Clay Anderson came down here, he could only stay for 45 minutes. In that case it is just like a normal 60-foot (18-meter) dive. If he had stayed longer, he would have had to go through decompression.
Do you think we are any closer to realizing Jacques Cousteau's vision of underwater colonies?
Cousteau: Technologically speaking, we're absolutely capable of doing it at this point; it's a matter of funding and willpower. On the flip side of that coin, there is a lot of technology now that my grandfather had only dreamed of: for example, the ability to talk to you on the surface [through WiFi]. Underwater habitats are a fantastic tool for science and education, and they provide a unique perspective.

Young: I could see myself having an underwater vacation house, but I'd miss my friends and family too much to live underwater permanently.
You have pointed out that we have explored only about 5 percent of the ocean. Why is it important to keep exploring?
Cousteau: I think it's paramount to learn more about the ocean, not just for science, which is incredibly important, but also for ourselves. We need to learn more about the interconnectivity of the ocean. This is our life support system. Otherwise, we are just a little brown rock in space like all the others. There's no such thing as healthy people without a healthy ocean.

We're polluting what's left in ways that are starting to affect us. It's leading to increased rates of cancer and all sorts of other diseases. We're basically using the ocean as a garbage can.

Young: I'm concerned we might destroy ecosystems in the deep sea before we even know they existed. Now we have the technology to mine the seafloor, overfish, and destroy coral reefs by changing acidity.
Your team has been studying ocean acidification. How have you been doing that, and what have you learned?
Magee: There are beautiful giant sponges right outside the habitat. Some could be thousands of years old. Some call them redwoods of the reef. And we're setting up sensors inside them to measure such variables as oxygen and temperature, so we'll be able to understand what happens with rising acidity of the water and its impacts on the sponges. It will also help us better understand the activity of these sponges.
What else are you studying?
Magee: We are using sonar to study predators and prey. The sonar mounts to the top of your helmet so you can visualize it. And Grace brought a high-speed camera.

Young: The camera came out just five weeks ago, and we got one of the first models. We had a housing built for it, and we are using it for the first time underwater. Last night we looked at Christmas tree worms. We hope to better understand how the creature moves.

Magee: A grouper fish releases a pulse of sound to stun prey fish. We hope to capture that with the high-speed camera. It's so fast that you wouldn't hear it if you were diving right next to it. The only way we can hope to capture it is by spending hours in the water, and the only way we can do that is by saturation diving. The only way to do that is by a habitat, so Aquarius gives us the gift of time.
When retired astronaut Clay Anderson visited you at Aquarius earlier today, did he find the habitat similar to being in space?
Cousteau: NASA uses Aquarius as a training ground for space because the parameters are very similar to living in space. In 2003 Clay Anderson came down here to train. It's also thrilling to have an astronaut here to explain why it is so important for exploration in general.

Young: In my background in robotics, I think of the ocean and space as similar environments.
What do you do for fun underwater?
Magee: Yesterday was really fun for me. I made a dive over five hours, my longest ever. It's really fun just being in the water.

Young: We can watch movies, but we haven't much-we have too much fun looking out the window.

Cousteau: We have playing cards, but they haven't been opened. Most of the time we're just looking out the window. It's so fascinating. It's a unique experience.

Magee: The fish are just as intrigued with us as we are with them. Last night we had a grouper that was staring in at our window. She was checking us out.

Cousteau: It's also neat how many people are watching us online. We have a constant video stream. My mom saw me blow my nose, and she emailed to ask if I had a cold.
What have been the coolest things you've seen on the mission?
Cousteau: One evening [while diving] I was waiting for the cameraman, and I looked over at a post [outside the habitat]. All of a sudden, it started smoking. I thought it might be an electrical fire or something. But when I got closer, I realized there were about 30 Christmas tree worms on the post, and they had started spawning all at once, so it looked like smoke. I also saw a giant tarpon swimming around close enough to touch. A few days ago we saw a grouper strike a barracuda. I've never heard of that behavior before.

Young: What amazes me is I'll look at a patch that looks like empty sand, but the more you look the more you discover. I saw a piece of sea grass and then saw it walking. I thought I was hallucinating, and then I saw it was a tiny crab.

Cousteau: For Mission 31 we have the goal of reaching 331 million people around the world, and hopefully we'll double that. We'll have a feature documentary, and we have many blog posts and information on our website. We've done many sessions with classrooms around the world.

We hope to continue the synergy that we're starting to see around ocean protection. It's critical so our children will be able to enjoy the ocean. When I first had the idea for the mission, I didn't know if we would pull it off, but my grandfather used to say only the crazy ideas succeed.

Young: It's been a splash.
This interview has been edited and condensed. Follow Brian Clark Howard on Twitter and Google+.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fabien Cousteau Leads "Aquanauts" in Record-Breaking Undersea Expedition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fabien Cousteau is leading a team of scientists, educators, and filmmakers this month on the longest-ever expedition in a stationary habitat beneath the sea. The project, called Mission 31, aims to build awareness about the need to protect the ocean and honors a historic expedition 50 years ago by Cousteau's famous grandfather, explorer Jacques Cousteau.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amitai Etzioni says there are bigger priorities than a new push for manned exploration in space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives. Communication satellites allow us instant access to information all over the world using radio, television, and phones. Some people credit in part the fall of the Soviet Union to ease of information access; the people in those countries saw what the rest of the world was doing, accelerating the process of reform. GPS satellites allow us to track ships, airplanes, and even people who may be lost or in need of help.

Reaching outward into space has helped us in other ways as well. A fleet of satellites (YOHKOH, SOHO and others) study the Sun so that we can better understand it. Huge solar eruptions can damage satellites and cause power blackouts (like in Quebec in 1989), and the Sun directly influences our environment. Understanding the Sun is a critical use of space technology.

Exploring the other planets helps us put the Earth in context. Why is Mars dry, cold, nearly airless, and dead? Why is Venus covered in thick clouds and suffering a runaway greenhouse effect? Why do hurricanes on Jupiter last for centuries? All these questions (and thousands more) help us understand our own planet, and allow us to see how humans are affecting it. Certainly understanding asteroids is important-- we need to learn how to move them in case one is heading our way; an asteroid impact could wipe out all humans on Earth, so our very future is tied to space travel.

There are simple technological reasons for space exploration as well. Some estimates say that for every dollar invested in the Apollo program, more than 20 have been returned. That's a huge payoff! Computer tech, communications, rocketry, and many other fields have benefited hugely from space exploration.

And there is one more reason. Humans strive to learn, to explore, to push boundaries, to see what's around the corner. This is in many ways a fundamental need, and space exploration is a fantastic manifestation of that. The Universe is huge, beautiful, mysterious, and, ultimately, knowable. Even if the other reasons were not there, this alone should be enough for us pursue our exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

Early space activities were dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. However, as time went by, Europe and Japan also learned how to build their own satellites and rockets. Today, countries such as China, India, South Korea, Israel and Brazil are developing their own space industries.

During the last 60 years, unmanned probes have been sent towards all of the planets in the Solar System, as well as many satellites, asteroids and comets. Spacecraft have soft-landed on half a dozen worlds, while rovers have driven over the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. The Sun has also been explored in great detail by a fleet of spacecraft.

Many space observatories, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, have been launched to look at the distant Universe. They have sent back some amazing pictures taken in visible light. But they can also observe stars and galaxies at wavelengths that are invisible to human eyes - radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. The flood of discoveries has changed the way we look at the Universe.

More than 500 people have also flown in space since Yuri Gagarin paved the way in 1961. 20 people have travelled to the Moon and 12 of them have walked on the Moon. Space stations have been built, and astronauts have learned to live and work in space for many months, or even years.

Last modified 26 January 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am convinced that if NASA were to disappear tomorrow, if we never put up another Hubble Space Telescope, never put another human being in space, people in this country would be profoundly distraught. Americans would feel that we had lost something that matters, that our best days were behind us, and they would feel themselves somehow diminished. Yet I think most would be unable to say why.

There are many good reasons to continue to explore space, which most Americans have undoubtedly heard. Some have been debated in public policy circles and evaluated on the basis of financial investment. In announcing his commitment to send the country back to the moon and, later, on to Mars, President Bush quite correctly said that we do it for purposes of scientific discovery, economic benefit, and national security. I've given speeches on each of those topics, and these reasons can be clearly shown to be true. And presidential science advisor Jack Marburger has said that questions about space exploration come down to whether we want to bring the solar system within mankind's sphere of economic influence. I think that is extraordinarily well put.

But these are not reasons that would make Americans miss our space program. They are merely the reasons we are most comfortable discussing. I think of them as "acceptable reasons" because they can be logically defended. When we contemplate committing large sums of money to a project, we tend to dismiss reasons that are emotional or value-driven or can't be captured on a spreadsheet. But in space exploration those are the reasons-what I think of as "real reasons"-that are the most important.

When Charles Lindbergh was asked why he crossed the Atlantic, he never once answered that he wanted to win the $25,000 that New York City hotel owner Raymond Orteig offered for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. Burt Rutan and his backer, Paul Allen, certainly didn't develop a private spacecraft to win the Ansari X-Prize for the $10 million in prize money. They spent twice as much as they made. Sergei Korolev and the team that launched Sputnik were not tasked by their government to be the first to launch an artificial satellite; they had to fight for the honor and the resources to do it.

I think we all know why people strive to accomplish such things. They do so for reasons that are intuitive and compelling to all of us but that are not necessarily logical. They're exactly the opposite of acceptable reasons, which are eminently logical but neither intuitive nor emotionally compelling.

First, most of us want to be, both as individuals and as societies, the first or the best in some activity. We want to stand out. This behavior is rooted in our genes. We are today the descendants of people who survived by outperforming others. Without question that drive can be carried to an unhealthy extreme; we've all seen more wars than we like. But just because the trait can be taken too far doesn't mean that we can do without it completely.

A second reason is curiosity. Who among us has not had the urge to know what's over the next hill? What child has not been drawn to explore beyond the familiar streets of the neighborhood?

Finally, we humans have, since the earliest civilizations, built monuments. We want to leave something behind to show the next generation, or the generations after that, what we did with our time here. This is the impulse behind cathedrals and pyramids, art galleries and museums.

Cathedral builders would understand what I mean by real reasons. The monuments they erected to the awe and mystery of their God required a far greater percentage of their gross domestic product than we will ever put into the space business, but we look back across 600 or 800 years of time, and we are still awed by what the builders accomplished. Those buildings, therefore, also stand as monuments to the builders.

The return the cathedral builders made on their investment could not have been summarized in a cost/benefit analysis. They began to develop civil engineering, the core discipline for any society if it wishes to have anything more than thatched huts. They gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. For example, they learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level, where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level, where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking: the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades.

It is my contention that the products of our space program are today's cathedrals. The space program satisfies the desire to compete, but in a safe and productive manner, rather than in a harmful one. It speaks abundantly to our sense of human curiosity, of wonder and awe at the unknown. Who can watch people assembling the greatest engineering project in the history of mankind-the International Space Station-and not wonder at the ability of people to conceive and to execute the project? And it also addresses our need for leaving something for future generations.

Of course the space program also addresses the acceptable reasons, and in the end this is imperative. Societies will not succeed in the long run if they place their resources and their efforts in enterprises that, for whatever reason, don't provide concrete value. But I believe that projects done for the real reasons that motivate humans also serve the acceptable reasons. In that sense, the value of space exploration really is in its spinoffs, as many have argued. But it's not in spinoffs like Teflon and Tang and Velcro, as the public is so often told-and which in fact did not come from the space program. And it's not in spinoffs in the form of better heart monitors or cheaper prices for liquid oxygen for hospitals, although the space program's huge demand for liquid oxygen spurred fundamental improvements in the production and handling of this volatile substance. The real spinoffs are, just as they were for cathedral builders, more fundamental.

Anyone who wants to build spacecraft, who wants to be a subcontractor, or who even wants to supply bolts and screws to the space industry must work to a higher level of precision than human beings had to do before the space industry came along. And that standard has influenced our entire industrial base, and therefore our economy.

As for national security, what is the value to the United States of being involved in enterprises which lift up human hearts everywhere? What is the value to the United States of being a leader in such efforts, in projects in which every technologically capable nation wants to take part? The greatest strategy for national security, more effective than having better guns and bombs than everyone else, is being a nation that does the kinds of things that make others want to do them with us.

What do you have to do, how do you have to behave, to do space projects? You have to value hard work. You have to live by excellence, or die from the lack of it. You have to understand and practice both leadership and followership. You have to build partnerships; leaders need partners and allies, as well as followers.

You have to accept the challenge of the unknown, knowing that you might fail, and to do so not without fear but with mastery of fear and a determination to go anyway. You have to defer gratification because we work on things that not all of us will live to see-and we know it.

We now believe that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark energy or dark matter, terms for things that we as yet know nothing about. Is it even conceivable that one day we won't learn to harness them? As cavemen learned to harness fire, as people two centuries ago learned to harness electricity, we will learn to harness these new things. It was just a few years ago that we confirmed the existence of dark matter, and we would not have done so without the space program. What is the value of knowledge like that? I cannot begin to guess. A thousand years from now there will be human beings who don't have to guess; they will know, and they will know we gave this to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ambition, curiosity, and a reason the NASA Administrator admits has nothing to do with economic benefit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Help Save our Oceans! : A Groundbreaking Undersea Expedition with Fabien Cousteau

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neil deGrasse Tyson - We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Space may be called "the final frontier," but anyone who has seen a picture of a goblin shark or a vampire squid will agree that the ocean can be downright alien. Both realms are ripe for exploration, offer extensive potential benefits and come at a hefty price.

So which wins in a battle between the two for the title of the final frontier? Which area of exploration will result in the greater good for humanity? Dr. Paul Bunje, senior director of prize development and ocean health at the XPRIZE Foundation, and Alexandra Hall, senior director of Google Lunar XPRIZE, met on the Social Good Summit stage to duke it out on Tuesday.

Space has been the clear leader for a long time. $17.8 billion dollars is going toward space exploration in 2013, compared to the $5 billion dollars that goes toward oceanic exploration. This discrepancy has led to skewed results: While 500 individuals have been sent into space, only three have visited the deepest part of the ocean, the Mariana Trench.

We have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of our own ocean floor, and we understand more about the dark side of the moon than ocean life. Despite centuries of ocean exploration, we've only covered about 5% of the ocean.

Bunje insists that this needs to change.

"In that 5% we have some of the most amazing things on this planet. We've got a mountain range, the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, that has thousands of peaks taller than the Alps are, for instance," he said. "You've got, every time someone goes down, new species that are wondrous and unbelievably strange sometimes. And in reality, if you take all of the world's oceans, that's 99% of our living space on Earth, and we know almost nothing about it."

Bunje also said that there are three reasons why the oceans deserve more research love: food, jobs and oxygen.

The ocean produces 20% of the world's protein supply, and 3 billion people rely on the ocean for their livelihood. The ocean also produces 70% of Earth's oxygen. These statistics, to Bunje and other ocean activists, mean that dangers like ocean acidification and climate change need our attention.

Hall insists that the investment isn't as skewed as it seems. The simple fact that getting into space comes with a very large dollar sign must be taken into account when comparing the budgets. She insists that the reasons to explore space include economic benefit, national security and something that cannot be simplified down to a monetary amount: the satisfaction of our own curiosity.

Benefits of space exploration aren't just about walking on the moon anymore. Research to put astronauts into space has resulted in great advancements in technology and medicine, and has resulted in the creation of jobs and economic benefits.

Beyond that, Hall insists, is the more romantic reason to continue space exploration: Space is inspiring.

"Finding out about the origin of our planet Earth and the rest of the solar system is something that that we have a deep need to know about," she said.

Hall insists that space research benefits the planet as well. Seeing Earth from space created a concept of Planet Earth. NASA has more money in its budget to be used towards Earth sciences than should go towards planetary sciences, and it has resulted in significant breakthroughs, including information on the melting ice caps, climate change and ocean surface temperatures.

The good news, when it comes to space versus the ocean, is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. Both Bunje and Hall are working on million-dollar contests to increase research in space and in the ocean. Additionally, billions of dollars in government funding go toward research projects every year, in the hopes that some of these innovations can become a reality.

Which side are you on? You can continue the conversation online by using the hashtags #teamocean and #teamspace on Twitter and Facebook, or leave us a comment in the section below.

About Social Good Summit

The Social Good Summit is where big ideas meet new media to create innovative solutions and is brought to you by Mashable, The 92nd Street Y, The United Nations Foundation, The United Nations Development Programme, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Ericsson. Held during U.N. Week, the Social Good Summit unites a dynamic community of global leaders to discuss a big idea: the power of innovative thinking and technology to solve our greatest challenges.

Date: Sept. 22 through Sept. 24 Time: 12 to 6 p.m. each day Location: 92nd Street Y, 1395 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. Tickets are sold-out, but tune into the Livestream.

About Ericsson
BONUS: 10 Moving Quotes From Day 2 of Social Good Summit Image: Mashable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ocean vs. Space: Which Is the True Final Frontier?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Space may be called "the final frontier," but anyone who has seen a picture of a goblin shark or a vampire squid will agree that the ocean can be downright alien. Both realms are ripe for exploration, offer extensive potential benefits and come at a hefty price.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For some, the irony is almost too much to bear. While Congress is eager to fund a $2 billion expedition to search for oceans beneath Europa, some 95% of Earth's oceans are unexplored. Given the role of oceans in regulating climate, and their untapped potential for food and health, is it time to rethink our priorities?

This debate has been going on for half a century. Even John Steinbeck wrote an impassioned plea in 1966 to create a NASA for the oceans:

While the lifeless rubbled surface of the inconstant moon becomes increasingly littered with the burnt-out bones of vehicles, the bathyscaphe has visited the deep and unknown places of the earth only a few times. There is never much argument about appropriations for space shots, but a recent request for money to explore, map, and evaluate the hidden places of our mother earth brought howls of protest from Congressional leaders and the inevitable question-is it really necessary?

We must explore our world and then we must farm it and harvest its plant life.....And we must mine the minerals, refine the chemicals to our use. Surely the rewards are beyond anything we can now conceive, and will be increasingly needed in an over-populated and depleting world.

There is something for everyone in the sea-incredible beauty for the artist, the excitement and danger of exploration for the brave and restless, an open door for the ingenuity and inventiveness of the clever, a new world for the bored, food for the hungry, and incalculable material wealth for the acquisitive-and all of these in addition to the pure clean wonder of increasing knowledge.

Steinbeck's arguments are still heard among oceanographers and self-described "ocean nerds" today. "As a scientist, I want to explore the great wonders our ocean has to offer," Conservation International's Greg Stone. "As a conservationist, I need to explore the vital human-ocean connection: how the ocean can provide for people and how our impacts affect the health of our oceans."

Likewise, Michael Conathan at the Center for American Progress :

In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources....

But even in a time of shrinking budgets, the priorities remain unchanged: NASA's exploration budget dominates the ocean exploration budget of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) by roughly 150-to-1.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

We are awed by the beauty and diversity of marine life, including exotic creatures that look more alien than anything we've seen in science fiction. We recognize the impact that environmental degradation of the oceans has on tourism and fishing industries. We express outrage over whale hunting. And with every passing week, we hear more dire news about the ocean's longterm health: massive "dead zones," accumulating plastic debris, the growing threats to coral reefs.

So, why does ocean exploration hold less appeal than the exploration of space?Conathan argues that part of this incongruity comes from :

No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what's out there. We're presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves.

And those exotic, deep-sea creatures? They often don't survive the trip to the surface. Decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals remains limited, and we remain disconnected from deep ocean life.

And then, there's the harsh reality by Ryan Carlyle, a subsea hydraulics engineer - ocean exploration can be excruciatingly boring:

The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots....Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between.

We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.

Or, put another way, here is a typical view from an undersea probe:

And, here's a view from a rover on Mars:

Let's face it. When we see images from other planets, even the most mundane terrain captivates us, because we getting close-up glimpses of worlds where humanity has yet to visit. What's always been true about exploration remains true today: Nothing intrigues us like the blank spots on a map.

The Case Against Space

One of the most ardent proponents of shifting our exploration priorities is Amitai Etzioni, the director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. In his 1964 book The Moondoggle, he said there was less to be gained in deep space than in near space - the sphere in which communication, navigations, weather, and reconnaissance satellites orbit - and argued for more investment in studying our own planet instead of the Moon.

Fifty years later, his views haven't changed; if anything he feels vindicated. In the most recent issue of the journal, Issues In Science and Technology, he updates his 1964 argument, saying that we need to choose the "fruitful frontier" over the "final frontier."

The entire article is worth reading in full, but here are some highlights of his case for bringing our exploration budget down to Earth:
Climate

NASA does make helpful contributions to climate science by way of its monitoring programs.... However, there seem to be no viable solutions to climate change that involve space.

By contrast, it is already clear that the oceans offer a plethora of viable solutions to the Earth's most pressing troubles. For example, scientists have already demonstrated that the oceans serve as a "carbon sink." The oceans have absorbed almost one-third of anthropogenic CO2 emitted since the advent of the industrial revolution and have the potential to continue absorbing a large share of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. Researchers are exploring a variety of chemical, biological, and physical geoengineering projects to increase the ocean's capacity to absorb carbon. Additional federal funds should be allotted to determine the feasibility and safety of these projects and then to develop and implement any that are found acceptable.

Food

Although aquaculture is rapidly expanding-more than 60% from 2000 to 2008-and represented more than 40% of global fisheries production in 2006, a number of challenges require attention if aquaculture is to significantly improve worldwide supplies of food. First, scientists have yet to understand the impact of climate change on aquaculture and fishing. Ocean acidification is likely to damage entire ecosystems, and rising temperatures cause marine organisms to migrate away from their original territory or die off entirely. It is important to study the ways that these processes will likely play out and how their effects might be mitigated.

On the issue of food, NASA is atypically mum. It does not claim it will feed the world with whatever it finds or plans to grow on Mars, Jupiter, or any other place light years away. The oceans are likely to be of great help.

Health

While NASA has claimed that its space exploration "benefit[ted] pharmaceutical drug development"....Ocean research, as modest as it is, has already yielded several medical "spinoffs." The discovery of one species of Japanese black sponge, which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led researchers to develop a late-stage breast cancer drug. An expedition near the Bahamas led to the discovery of a bacterium that produces substances that are in the process of being synthesized as antibiotics and anticancer compounds. In addition to the aforementioned cancer fighting compounds, chemicals that combat neuropathic pain, treat asthma and inflammation, and reduce skin irritation have been isolated from marine organisms....[Yet] up to two-thirds of all marine life remains unidentified.

To Boldly Go

Furthermore, for years scientists have been fascinated by noises originating at the bottom of the ocean, known creatively as "the Bloop" and "Julia," among others. And the world's largest known "waterfall" can be found entirely underwater between Greenland and Iceland, where cold, dense Arctic water from the Greenland Sea drops more than 11,500 feet before reaching the seafloor of the Denmark Strait. Much remains poorly understood about these phenomena, their relevance to the surrounding ecosystem, and the ways in which climate change will affect their continued existence.

In short, there is much that humans have yet to understand about the depths of the oceans, further research into which could yield important insights about Earth's geological history and the evolution of humans and society. Addressing these questions surpasses the importance of another Mars rover or a space observatory designed to answer highly specific questions of importance mainly to a few dedicated astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and select colleagues.

Etzioni argues that NASA's projects, especially those dedicated to exploring deep space and to manned missions, can readily be cut, with billions moved from distant planets to nearby oceans. Echoing that letter written by John Steinbeck nearly 50 years ago, Etzioni concludes, "The United States needs an agency that can spearhead a major drive to explore the oceans-an agency that has yet to be envisioned and created."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should We Be Exploring The Oceans Instead Of Space?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For some, the irony is almost too much to bear. While Congress is eager to fund a $2 billion expedition to search for oceans beneath Europa, some 95% of Earth's oceans are unexplored. Given the role of oceans in regulating climate, and their untapped potential for food and health, is it time to rethink our priorities?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Magazines+, you get fresh, high-interest content delivered all year long-in print, online or both. Every single story, video and activity is designed to hook your students and keep them engaged. And because Magazines+ complements your curriculum, it's easy to implement during any part of the school day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AP

New York City's do-gooders are at it again, this time looking to put a 10-cent fee on each plastic bag that stores normally provide to their customers without charge.

This isn't just another burden on the city's beleaguered small retailers, it's also a terrible idea for public health.

When then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg pushed a similar proposal a few years back, it never even got a hearing. But the new bill already has 19 City Council members signed on as co-sponsors.

And Deputy Mayor Anthony Shorris told WNYC radio this month that the fee is a direction the de Blasio administration is "very supportive of."

I long ago lost count of how many regulations of the past decade have unintended, bad consequences that hit the city's small retailers the hardest.

These beleaguered store owners already face an army of enforcement agents who treat them like a cash cow. The city's bids to promote "the public good" never take into consideration the health of these stores or the neighborhood economies that they support.

Our local army of regulators belongs to what the author Saul Bellow called the Good Intentions Paving Co.

This company's projects are always well-meant, but when they turn out to have undesired costs, tradeoffs and side-effects, the company leaders sincerely believe that none of the blame can possibly attach to them. After all, their intentions were good!

The irony here is that the bag fee poses a direct threat to New Yorkers' health.

The point of the bag tax is to force consumers to substitute reusable bags for the no-longer-free plastic ones.

Problem is, reusable bags play a significant role in food contamination unless they're properly washed on a regular basis - something people rarely do.

In a public-health study done at the University of Arizona, researchers found that only 3 percent of shoppers with multi-use bags said they regularly washed them. The same study found bacteria in 99 percent. Half carried coliform bacteria, and 8 percent carried E. coli - an indicator of fecal contamination.

"I classify them as pretty dirty things, like the bottom of your shoes," said Ryan Sinclair of the Loma Linda University School of Public Health, a co-author of the study.

As the study showed, the reusable bags function as a Petri dish for all kinds of contaminants. Further, three-fourths of their users acknowledged that they don't use separate bags for meats and for vegetables, and about a third said they used the bags for, well, all sorts of things (storing snacks, toting books).

A study by the Centers for Disease Control verified the dangers: "Reusable bags, if not properly washed between uses, create the potential for cross-contamination of foods.

"This potential exists when raw meat products and foods traditionally eaten uncooked (fruits and vegetables) are carried in the same bags, either together or between uses. This risk can be increased by the growth of bacteria in the bags."

What about the environmental benefit? At best, it's smaller than the do-gooders imagine.

It takes less energy to make plastic bags than the canvas ones that the "reusers" usually push - and, in fact, consumers find multiple post-store uses for the plastic, from in-home trash bags to padding in a storage box.

Yes, most wind up in the garbage eventually - but before we restrict them, let's figure out ways to make plastic-bag recycling more efficient - something that the Department of Sanitation has failed to do.

Polls throughout the country find that people overwhelmingly reject bans and regressive taxes. Imagine the results if people knew more about the health threat posed by reusable bags.

Let's shelve the bag fee and search for better ways to aid the environment that don't burden our small businesses and threaten our citizens' health.

Brad Gerstman is a lawyer, lobbyist and co-founder of the New York Association of Grocery Stores.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The City Council's plan to promote E. coli

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New York City's do-gooders are at it again, this time looking to put a 10-cent fee on each plastic bag that stores normally provide to their customers without charge. This isn't just another burden...

# data[].attributes.body
*may be one that you want to steer students toward during Session 12 “Who Said What? Studying Perspective”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Plastic retail bags - the kind you get from your grocer or at the corner store - are being targeted for bans and taxes in communities around the country, regardless of the unintended consequences. Bans and taxes have a negative impact on working families and seniors on fixed incomes, but they don't help the environment in any meaningful way-in fact they can cause bigger problems.

Banning and taxing recyclable, reusable products doesn't make sense, even in the most well-intentioned scenarios. Keep reading to find out why.

Environment
Plastic bags are the most environmentally friendly option at the checkout. Find out the surprising green truth for yourself.

Recycling
Plastic bag recycling is simple and effective, thanks to thousands of recycling drop-off locations across the country.

Jobs and Economy
Bag bans and taxes make trips to the grocery store more expensive, especially for low- and fixed-income families - with no meaningful impact on the environment to back them up. They also threaten thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Health
Be mindful with your reusable canvas and non-woven bags. Without frequent washing and appropriate storage, reusable bags can harbor dangerous bacteria.

Reuse
Nearly 90% of Americans reuse plastic bags. What do you do with yours?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bans and taxes have a negative impact on working families and seniors on fixed incomes, but they don't help the environment in any meaningful way-in fact they can cause bigger problems.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Toronto is banning plastic shopping bags in stores.

Starting in January 2013, you'll have to bring your own reusable bag to the store to cart your goods away.

More than 250 million bags end up in landfill every year, never breaking down into compost, according to a report by CBC News.

Plastic bags can also clog drainage systems and, when they are washed out to sea, can hurt fish and other marine animals.

Plastic bags are banned or restricted in about a quarter of the countries in the world, according to online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

Countries including Italy and South Africa have banned plastic bags. Many large cities have also banned them.

Toronto currently charges five cents per bag-for instance, for people who want a plastic bag to carry their groceries home.

The five-cent fee was put in place to discourage people from using the non-environmentally friendly product. Instead, people are encouraged to bring their own reusable bags to stores.

After Ireland put a fee on plastic bags in 2002, 90 per cent fewer bags were used. In 2010 Washington D.C. began charging five cents per plastic bag and that city's consumption of them went down from 22.5 million to three million in the first month.

In Toronto, the plastic bag fee has cut down on the number of plastic bags used by half, according to Metro newspaper.

A ban was not exactly what Toronto mayor Rob Ford had in mind when he brought up the subject at City Council on Wednesday. In fact, he wanted to end the five-cent fee on bags.

However, Councillor David Shiner proposed a very different motion. He suggested Toronto do away with plastic bags altogether.

That motion passed, 24 to 20. Starting on Jan. 1, 2013, retailers in Toronto will not be allowed to give out or sell any plastic shopping bags, including ones that claim to be "compostable or biodegradable."

According to Metro, "Ford appeared upset after the vote, blinking rapidly." Ford said council's decision didn't make any sense, and said he felt the motion will be overturned.

Council also voted to stop the five-cent fee for plastic bags, from July 1 until the ban takes effect. That means stores will be able to hand out plastic bags free in Toronto for six months.

Ford later told a news radio station that he would like to see Torontonians come down to City Hall to protest the ban. He said he thinks the ban is the dumbest thing Toronto council has ever done.

CURRICULUM CONNECTIONS
By Jonathan Tilly

Writing/Discussion Prompt
What do you think should be done about plastic bags. Should they be free of charge, cost 5 cents, or be banned altogether. Make a jot list of reasons to support your answer.

Reading Prompt: Purpose
Use the information in today's article to write a letter to Toronto's City Counsel. OK, now go ahead... and send send it. Let them know what you think!

Primary, Junior, & Intermediate
Identify a variety of purposes for reading and choose reading materials appropriate for those purposes (OME, Reading: 1.2).

Grammar Feature: Verbs
Verbs are action words. Every sentence includes at least one verb. The verbs authors choose help readers understand the text. Underline the "key" verbs in today's story that help you understand it. How do these verbs affect your understanding?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mayor Ford is furious that Toronto's city council voted to ban all plastic bags in 2013. Read the facts and form your own opinion! Kids News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore National Geographic. A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Bloodthirsty, ruthless, killer: shark. For years people have feared and slaughtered sharks because of the bad rap they have received from Hollywood, but these beliefs are not justified.

Sharks are not vicious and are actually quite gentle. Of the more than 388 species of sharks only two (the Great White and the Tiger) have been known to attack man and then only because of mistaken identity. Wetsuits and surfboards used by surfers are mistaken by sharks as the thick, rubbery, skin of seals, which are their main diet. Once the shark bites the surfer, it almost immediately lets go because it does not taste like its favorite meal.

Not all big sharks have huge jaws full of teeth, as many people believe. Whale sharks, the largest fish in the world, are the most affable creatures you will encounter in our world's oceans. These sharks (that can weigh over three thousand pounds and grow up to five stories in length) have no teeth at all. Instead they have a mouth full of baleen that they use to filter plankton and tiny fish out the hundreds of gallons of sea water that passes through their monstrous mouths at one time. These peaceful giants have been known to let divers ride on their backs and don't show any aggression when approached.

People should treat sharks with respect, as they should all earth's creatures. The only way for future generations to learn to appreciate these magnificent creatures (instead of fear them) is through education. This can be accomplished through programs which highlight the good points about sharks, instead of the myths surrounding them. Another way is to make ocean research available to all people - everyone should have the chance to learn the truth about sharks. ^

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharks: Killers Or Just Misunderstood? | Teen Ink

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Bloodthirsty, ruthless, killer: shark. For years people have feared and slaughtered sharks because of the bad rap they have received from Hollywood, but these beliefs are not justified.Sharks are not vicious and are actually quite

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sharks are scary-no doubt about it. Just ask anyone who's seen Jaws or other films that feature these sharp-toothed creatures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mt. Everest: Why do People Keep Climbing it?

# data[].attributes.subject
Mt. Everest: Why do People Keep Climbing it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mt. Everest: Why Do People Keep Climbing It?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite tales of overcrowding, fighting and tragedy, hundreds of people continue to try to summit Everest every year. What's the appeal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climbing Mount Everest is always an extreme challenge. But experts say tackling the world's highest peak-located in Asia on the border between Nepal and China-became much, much riskier this year.

That's because of a huge increase in the number of climbers allowed on the mountain, which recently led to deadly human traffic jams along the stretch to the top. At 29,029 feet, Everest is so high that humans must rely on bottled oxygen to breathe near the summit. Stuck waiting for hours in lines to reach Everest's peak, some climbers ran low on oxygen. That was likely a key factor in many of the at least 11 deaths on the mountain this year.

Most people start their climbs from Nepal. One of the poorest nations in Asia, Nepal relies heavily on money from Everest expeditions. Its government issued more permits to climb the mountain in 2019 than ever before-many to inexperienced climbers, experts say.

In response to a global outcry following one of the deadliest Everest seasons on record, officials in Nepal say they may start requiring climbers to prove their experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A huge increase in the number of climbers made tackling the world's highest peak extra risky this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Extreme Sports Facts

Check out our range of extreme sports facts.

Learn about the summer and winter X Games, different types of extreme sports, the surfaces and environments such as water, land, snow and air, as well as lots more interesting facts and information.

Extreme sports, sometimes called action sports or adventure sports, do not have an exact definition but are generally considered to be activities that are seen as having a high level of potential danger.

Extreme sports often involve high speeds, dangerous heights, the requirement for a high level of specialist technical skill, and highly specialized gear or equipment.

Success in extreme sports usually involves judging panels scoring athletes based on visual and technical criteria and completion of a 'trick'.

Height based extreme sports include Bungee jumping, skydiving, BASE jumping, paragliding and hang gliding.

Water based extreme sports include scuba diving, windsurfing, kitesurfing, wakeboarding surfing, whitewater kayaking and rafting.

Wheel based extreme sports include BMX, skateboarding, mountain biking, inline skating, rally car and motocross.

Winter based extreme sports include skiing, snowboarding, and snowmobile.

Cliff and cave based extreme sports include rock climbing, ice climbing, caving, free diving, mountaineering and cave diving.

The X Games are an annual extreme sports event, organized by the U.S. sports broadcaster ESPN. Participants compete to win gold, silver, and bronze medals along with prize money.

The first Summer X Games were held in 1995 in Newport, Rhode Island. The first Winter X Games were held in 1997 at Mountain Resort, Big Bear Lake, California.

X Games are typically held in the USA. The winter games are held in January or February and the summer games are usually held in August.

X Games have also been held in Asia since 1998 and Europe since 2010.

The X Games competitions often makes heroes of those athletes who are talented and brave enough to pull of a new and exciting 'trick' such as Tony Hawk's 900 in skateboarding, Travis Pastrana's double backflip in freestyle motocross, Heath Frisby's first snowmobile front flip or snowboarder Torstein Horgmo's triple flip.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Extreme Sports Facts - Information About X Games, Action Sports & More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Extreme Sports Facts Check out our range of extreme sports facts. Learn about the summer and winter X Games, different types of extreme sports, the surfaces and environments such as water, land, snow and air, as well as lots more interesting facts and information.