Normal Body Temperature?

[BillyJoe]

From a contribution from reader and professor of physics at Lakehead University, Canada, William Sears in this week's commentary

I must respond to your "normal" body temperature comment. It is useful to know the history of the 98.6 F value, since it is not what it seems. The original measurement of normal body temperature was done by averaging a number of tests on a group of people. The result was then "rounded off" to 37 Celsius, given the variation seen. Translated to Fahrenheit, exactly 37 C is exactly 98.6 F, a spurious increase in accuracy. It would be better to round this off to 99 F

I have always taken normal body temperature in Celcius to be 36.8.
Perhaps this has been a forwards conversion from 37 Celsius to 98.6 Fahrenheit and then backwards again from 98.6 Fahrenheit to 36.8 Celsius.
Nevertheless, I have been quoting normal body temperature as 36.8 Celsius or 98.6 Fahrenheit for as long as I can remember.

Have I really been wrong all this time, or should I treat the words of even a professor of physics with a degree of scepticism,

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[wdsmith]

Perhaps this has been a forwards conversion from 37 Celsius to 98.6 Fahrenheit and then backwards again from 98.6 Fahrenheit to 36.8 Celsius.

Nope. If you convert 98.6 Fahrenheit to Celsius, you get 37.0000...

Bill

 

[BillyJoe]

Bill,

....or should I treat the words of even a professor of physics with a degree of scepticism.

Congratulations!

31 people looked in on this thread before you did and,
apparently, none of them checked out the figures.
Fine sceptics THEY are, don't you think?




(If you were one of them please list your name below.
I will submit them to Randi to be eliminated.)

Thanks for playing,
BillyJoe

 

[wdsmith]

Re: Re: Normal Body Temperature?

31 people looked in on this thread before you did and,
apparently, none of them checked out the figures.
Fine sceptics THEY are, don't you think?

Maybe they did the calculation, but didn't care about the issue enough to reply. (It is pretty minor.)
Maybe they didn't know how to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius and vice versa.
And I do think they're a fine bunch of sceptics (or skeptics)!

 

[Rolfe]

Anybody want to stick a +/- in here? I mean, there's a degree of variation even among perfectly healthy people.... And are we talking core temperature, rectal, buccal, underarm, ear or wherever? The reading will also vary depending on how it's taken.

Rolfe.

 

[Camillus]

Anybody want to stick a +/- in here? I mean, there's a degree of variation even among perfectly healthy people.... And are we talking core temperature, rectal, buccal, underarm, ear or wherever? The reading will also vary depending on how it's taken.

Rolfe.

And when it's taken - there's a natural variation in body temperature throughout the day - and obviously physical exercise and ambient environmental temperature all play a part as well.

 

[Soapy Sam]

How is it possible for women to have hands and (aiee!) feet which are actually below the ambient air temperature?

And why must they put them on my back?

 

[Darat]

How is it possible for women to have hands and (aiee!) feet which are actually below the ambient air temperature?

And why must they put them on my back?

Perhaps you should use fresher ones? Or do as I do, get them out of the fridge an hour or so before you want to use them.

 

[BillyJoe]

Re: Re: Re: Normal Body Temperature?

Bill,

Maybe they did the calculation, but didn't care about the issue enough to reply. (It is pretty minor.)
Maybe they didn't know how to convert Fahrenheit to Celsius and vice versa.
And I do think they're a fine bunch of sceptics (or skeptics)!

Congratulations withdrawn.

BillyJoe.

 

[bzimmer4]

Anybody want to stick a +/- in here? I mean, there's a degree of variation even among perfectly healthy people.... And are we talking core temperature, rectal, buccal, underarm, ear or wherever? The reading will also vary depending on how it's taken.

Rolfe.

Absolutely. In medicine we consider a "core temperature" between 36.5 and 37.5 Celsius to be "within the normal range." Site of measurement is important; axillary (underarm) is usually a degree or more lower. Rectal may be a bit low, too. Core is usually approximated by oral (carefully taken) or tympanic membrane (ear).

FYI, when Gabriel Fahrenheit developed his scale for temperature measurement in 1724 he used two "anchor points." Zero was the temperature of freezing salt water. 96 degrees was his wife's axillary temperature. Made about as much sense as measuring the king's arm for a yardstick. Celcius makes a lot more sense; zero is freezing water, and 100 is boiling water.

[edited for accuracy]

BZ MD

 

[LTC8K6]

zero is freezing water, and 100 is boiling water.

Sometimes.

 

[Ririon]

Sometimes.

At sea level, yada yada...

It still makes a lot more sense than having a woman's armpit as a reference point. BTW, are there any countries that don't use the Celsius scale? (Except good old US of A of course.)

Come to think of it, is there any good reason why Americans in general refuse to use the international standard units? And don't give me "tradition" and "force of habit". Every culture originally had their own units based on the queens weight, the kings thumb or the amount of beer the prince could drink in an evening. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, everybody but the USA have since changed to a unit system that makes sense.

 

[Rolfe]

Come to think of it, is there any good reason why Americans in general refuse to use the international standard units? And don't give me "tradition" and "force of habit". Every culture originally had their own units based on the queens weight, the kings thumb or the amount of beer the prince could drink in an evening. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, everybody but the USA have since changed to a unit system that makes sense.

Rolfe (clinical biochemist who gets driven insane by this).

 

[rwguinn]

At sea level, yada yada...

It still makes a lot more sense than having a woman's armpit as a reference point. BTW, are there any countries that don't use the Celsius scale? (Except good old US of A of course.)

Come to think of it, is there any good reason why Americans in general refuse to use the international standard units? And don't give me "tradition" and "force of habit". Every culture originally had their own units based on the queens weight, the kings thumb or the amount of beer the prince could drink in an evening. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, everybody but the USA have since changed to a unit system that makes sense.

 

[jmercer]

Come to think of it, is there any good reason why Americans in general refuse to use the international standard units? And don't give me "tradition" and "force of habit". Every culture originally had their own units based on the queens weight, the kings thumb or the amount of beer the prince could drink in an evening. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, everybody but the USA have since changed to a unit system that makes sense.

Good reasons? Hm. Depends on your definition of "good".

First off, it would have to be mandated by law. Trust me on this - if it isn't made a federal requirement, it won't happen.

All school textbooks would have to be changed. Many labels would have to be changed and updated, and "F" dropped off entirely. (A lot of them are dual now.) And it may sound petty, but a lot of existing equipment would have to be refurbished or replaced because of Farenheit-only readings. And a lot of cookbooks would become obsolete overnight as well.

I wish we'd switch over to kilometers while we're at it, too. Of course, that would require all maps to be replaced, not to mention street -signs, etc.

When you get right down to it, fundamental change is hard...

 

[drkitten]

Come to think of it, is there any good reason why Americans in general refuse to use the international standard units?

The cost of changeover would be significant, and most Americans don't see the purpose. For example, every grocer's scale would need to be re-calibrated to measure in kilograms, and every petrol station pump would need to be re-calibrate to measure in liters. Businesses don't want to spend that kind of money if they don't have to.

In many cases, the "conversion" would not even be practical. For example, most houses in the United States are build to a building code that demands that studs be placed sixteen or twenty-four inches apart; most of the other measurements (for example, the width of standard doors and windows, the size of ceiling tiles, the distance between ceiling joists, et cetera) are related multiples of these distances. Converting 16 inches to 40.64 centimeters makes it more inconvenient, not less, to do these quick multiples (quick, what's three times a joist width?) But no one in their right mind will tear down the house and rebuild it with 50 cm studs.

And don't give me "tradition" and "force of habit". Every culture originally had their own units based on the queens weight, the kings thumb or the amount of beer the prince could drink in an evening. To my (admittedly limited) knowledge, everybody but the USA have since changed to a unit system that makes sense.

Don't sell the power of tradition and force of habit short. Tradition and force of habit are the reason that American houses are built with distances that are convenient and easy to work with in feet and inches. Tradition and force of habit are the reason that every American kitchen has a dozen measuring spoons in teaspoons and tablespoons -- and a shelf full of cookery books telling them how many of those oddball units to use. Most US cooks wouldn't know how many cups are in 500ml (or alternatively, how many ml their two-cup measuring cup holds). Converting to metric would make life more confusing, not less, until and unless they spend money re-equipping their perfectly serviceable kitchen.

There is a large installed user base of Imperial units. What advantage do you think the average housewife, the average grocer, the average mechanic, or the average truck driver, would get from using metric units?

The real question : why should Americans want to make the change?

 

[Dave_46]

.... and every petrol station pump would need to be re-calibrate to measure in liters. Businesses don't want to spend that kind of money if they don't have to.

I suspect that the reason the UK switched to selling petrol in litres was an economic one, the price looked less in litres, so could be raised more easily.

Dave

 

[Ririon]

The real question : why should Americans want to make the change?

So all the other countries in the world have done something stupid, expensive and inconvenient? Interesting point...

I guess another real question is: Why didn't the USA make this federal law a long time ago? I assume the costs of converting will only continue to grow.

I have heard something about the Carter administration trying to make this happen, but that seems very late in history, too. Any political history nerds out there?

 

[Ririon]

I suspect that the reason the UK switched to selling petrol in litres was an economic one, the price looked less in litres, so could be raised more easily.

Dave

Hey! Maybe I could get "Big Oil" lobbying for my side...

 

[I'll_buy_that]

Yes, the Carter admin did try to convert the US to metric in the 70's. Just think about how many roads were built, signs were posted, books were published and cars were manufactured since then. is there anything around since then that we use to measure that wouldn't have been replaced anyway?

by the way, the US could have gone metric in 1866:
congress
"It shall be lawful throughout the United States of America to employ the weights and measures of the metric system; and no contract or dealing, or pleading in any court, shall be deemed invalid or liable to objection because the weights or measures expressed or referred to therein are weights or measures of the metric system."

there weren't any speed limit signs to convert then.

but other than this, the US has no "official" measurement system.