Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Sat, 27 Dec 1997 18:24:34 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> 98.6 seems to be optimal body temp. Slight variations either above or below
> this level adversely affect enzyme systems and other metabolic processes.
>
> As far as I know, members of H % G societies have normal body temperatures at
> 98.6.
>
incorrect.
actually, normal body temperature was studied a long time ago, and
determined to be 37 degrees Centigrade based on the instruments available
at the time. the implied accuracy of the original figure was +/- 0.5
degree Centigrade.
the familiar 98.6 is not a precise value as the numerals make it appear,
it is just the result of the conversion of this figure to Fahrenheit
(37 x 9/5 + 32 = 98.6). although the accuracy of the Fahrenheit figure
would appear to be +/- 0.05 degree Fahrenheit, there is no magic in the
conversion and it is in fact the same as that of the original figure,
or +/- 0.9 degree Fahrenheit (almost a full degree, 0.5 x 9/5 = 0.9).
there has been research in the last year or two, which was published in
Science News (a +/- 16 page weekly digest of published reasearch), that
indicated that normal body temperature is in fact a bit lower than 98.6.
although the figure they came up with escapes me at the moment, I think
it was more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.
Douglas in Pittsburgh to us will be years and long days
<[log in to unmask]> with false kings and withering fruit-crops
- Merlin: Hoianau -
|
|
|