Mammalian body temps
J. Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
Mon, 10 Jul 95 10:39:00 -0500
TK> However, please don't develop them to the point of your
TK> crocodile argument, because that has become rather tedious.
You just *hate* those crocodile facts, don't you?
Tk> If a human being had a body
Tk> temperature of anything more than a 100 degrees F, they would be
Tk> considered ill, and certainly 104 is deathly ill. Whereas, to the
Tk> baboon, this is an acceptable range of temperature.
JM>Provide your source for this statement. I provided sources for my
JM>statements; why are your statements, and the theory you espouse, to be
JM>accorded special treatment, ie. "no sources for statements needed".
TK> Why do I need to provide a source for this statement? Everyone knows
TK> that a person with 104 temperature is ill. Look it up in any medical
TK> textbook.
Tk> Troy Kelley
The fact is that body temps are *not* steady, but fluctuate depending
on activity, stress, etc. I thought most people realised this common
sense fact, but somehow I'm not surprised to find in you an exception.
I'm sure you noticed (well, actually I'm sure you *didn't notice) when
you were reading about marathon runners to see how much they sweat, that
they often run temperatures of up to 41 degress C (105.8 degrees F).
They aren't "ill", much less "deathly ill". Didn't you even *think*
of looking this up before you posted?
This of course creates problems in getting "normal" ranges for non-human
primates, as they object to being strapped down in restraints. Believe
it or not, these animals don't just "sit there and say 'ahh'". This
naturally results in higher temperatures being found, just as they would
in humans if the common method of tempertaure taking was to chase down
the subject, strap them onto a restraint board, and have beings of
another species push thermometers up their rectums.
To wit:
"In most cases, they are likely to represent normal ranges, but normals
are difficult to establish for animals which readily become excited when
restrained." (pg. 602: 1987 *The Care and Management of Laboratory
Animals* Trevor Poole, ed. Longman Scientific and Technical: Harlow,
Essex.)
TK> In fact, (no I don't have a source for this) I would venture to say,
TK> it is one of the lowest of all primates.
Why is your theory, unlike any scientific theory, to be granted this
special "no references needed" treatment?
TK> Also, the temperature fluxuation for humans is very
TK> narrow, which is consistent with aquatic creatures, and inconsistent
TK> with savanna creatures.
TK> Troy Kelley
As we see in the above discussion of body temperature normals, the
"normal" human range as mentioned in most medical texts are taken in a
different manner than the "normals" of other animals. They have to be,
as these other animals are necessarily, and understandably, more
stressed than humans during the temp-taking procedure. We also see that
the *actual* human range extends quite a lot higher than the "normal"
represented by relaxed human subjects, as seen in the "98-99 degrees C"
range mentioned in medical texts. Your (unsupported) claim is therefore
incorrect.
Jim Moore (j#d#.moore@canrem.com)
* Q-Blue 2.0 *
|