Just for your curiosity though, I'd like to point out that this business of 37 being a "normal" temperature is actually quite... newish! Most probably as a result of the influence of the anglo-saxon business establishment in the pharmaceutical industry. I continue to reiterate that in the not-so-distant past this hasn't been exactly so. I've always learned at school, from my mom, family and doctors, that this figure should be more like a ~36.7 or so. This may sound like "splitting hairs" here but one should be mindful of the fact that despite the variations that our friend John mentioned below, under "normal" circumstances, like, NOT after exercising, or strenuous activity or after the sauna, spa, or things like that, our body does have an incredibly accurate thermostat and that differences of as high as 0.5 degrees (in Celsius) can translate into a difference of... "feeling" as far as health is concerned. What I mean is that our body temperatures, as personal as they might be, are kept remarkably close to a figure like the above and that small variations do "get noticed". Just think, folks. We're talking about a threshold of some couple or 3 degrees overall here! Isn't that incredible? ;-) And when it comes to determine the state of sickness of someone such very minor differences *do make a difference*, i.e. that someone having, say, a 39 is definitely in worse shape than someone with a 38! That, to me, is absolutely marvelous. Therefore, that's why I'm hesitant to subscribe to the "37-degree" bandwagon (*due* to its being *round*. Things in nature do not necessarily behave in "round" fashion, you know). I, personally, don't like that, since to me decimal accuracies *in this case* are rather important. So, I'd prefer to "sell" the concept of a more accurate figure like 36.7 (to the "deci-degree" accuracy) than to just point-blank say 37 is ok. My 2-cents worth, anyway... Marcus On Sun, 13 May 2001 15:03:40 kilopascal wrote: >2001-05-13 > >98.6 is the exact Fahrenheit conversion of the rational 37 on the Celsius >scale. It probably was standardised by European immigrant doctors who used >37 as the standard body temperature and used the F = C*(9/5)+32 to get the >Fahrenheit equivalent and never tried to rationalise it to either 98 or 99. >Not familiar with Fahrenheit, they had no idea how much a change of even 0.1 >0F was. > >The benchmarks in Celsius are per whole temperature increment. > >98.4 0F = 36.9 0C. 36.9 0C is what I once saw in Berlitz travel book, so it >appears they got this value from the British. > >I wonder how critical variations are to ones health that 37 can not be >accepted as the de facto norm for the whole world. Even if someone's norm >was 36.5, would that be so much a concern if the actual temperature was less >than normal? Higher temperatures are what counts, no? > >I'm sure our temperature must vary throughout the day and also depend on the >ambient to some extent. In higher ambients, where the body can not cool, >the body temperature must be slightly higher than normal, as it would be >during physical activity. And conversely, it must be a tad lower in >environments where the ambient is much below the norm and the body suffers >heat loss. > >Anyhow, 37 is the temp we should preach as it is a rational number, easy to >remember, and that 98.6 is an afterthought, a conversion from the true >Celsius. > >John > >Keiner ist hoffnungsloser versklavt als derjenige, der irrt|mlich glaubt >frei zu sein. > >There are none more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they >are free! > >Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, 2001-05-13 14:30 >Subject: [USMA:12765] Re: body temperature > > >> That was the practice in Britain when I was a kid (1930s and 1940s). I >guess >> kids don't have the patience to keep the thermometer under their tongue >for >> a whole minute. I'm not sure that I ever had a thermometer under my armpit >> for as long as ten minutes, though. >> >> Interestingly, on the Fahrenheit scale, the British "standard" (and, I >> believe, the British Commonwealth "standard," except for Canada) for >> "normal" temperature was 98.4 0F, whereas the U.S. "standard" is 98.6 0F. >> It's not a significant difference, of course. >> >> Bill Potts, CMS >> Roseville, CA >> http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >> > Behalf Of Nikolay O. Malyarov >> > Sent: May 12, 2001 21:20 >> > To: U.S. Metric Association >> > Subject: [USMA:12759] Re: body temperature >> > >> > >> > When I was growing up, my mum always measured my body temperature >> > by placing >> > a thermometre under my armpit for 10 minutes (it was a mercury >> > filled one). >> > The normal body temperature considered to be 36,6 degrees. At >> > the same time >> > the magic number 37 was highlighted in black on the scale >> > (opposite to black >> > for all other numbers). >> > >> > Cheers (from very metric Latvia), >> > Nick >> > >> > P.S. Marcus, I remember your request. Will definitely look. >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >> > Behalf Of James R. Frysinger >> > Sent: Sunday, 13 May 2001 4.41 >> > To: U.S. Metric Association >> > Subject: [USMA:12755] Re: body temperature >> > >> > >> > Normal body temperature (oral) is 37 0C. I would say that a whole degree >> > above that would be considered significant. >> > >> > Jim >> > >> > Mike wrote: >> > > >> > > I don't know if I've asked this before, so I'll ask again. We've got >> > > two digital oral thermometers in the house, one Farenheit and one >> > > Celcius. I've got the kids pretty well trained for air temperature, >but >> > > for body temperature we pretty much rely on the F one, since my wife >and >> > > I both know when it's just a temp (up to 101 or so), when to give >> > > Tylenol (102 to 107), and when to call the doctor (107 or above). >> > > >> > > Whether or not you agree with my breakdown, what are the comparable >> > > points in Celcius? Actually, since I could just convert from >Farenheit, >> > > I guess I'm really asking for an authoritative reference. I guess I'm >> > > expecting some easy to remember numbers, and conversions from >Farenheit >> > > are unlikely to be those. >> > > >> > > mike jenkins >> > >> > -- >> > Metric Methods(SM) "Don't be late to metricate!" >> > James R. Frysinger, CAMS http://www.metricmethods.com/ >> > 10 Captiva Row e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Charleston, SC 29407 phone/FAX: 843.225.6789 >> > >> > > Get 250 color business cards for FREE! http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/
