Is 98.6 F normal? (was Re: Fever)

[Guest guest]

This is a comment on fever temperatures in general.

Many of us learned in our youth that our normal, " healthy " body temperature is

98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, so this is the reference point for judging a fever.

For many people, their normal body temperature can be significantly lower,

leading to apparently slightly-elevated (or even apparently " normal " ) body

temperature readings to be wrongly considered to be of no concern.

For more information, read the New York Times article links presented below, and

especially the comments from readers. It could mean the difference between life

and death, especially for the elderly. One reader comment attributes the

problem to an overly precise translation of 37 degrees Celsius to 98.6 degrees

Fahrenheit. This comment has merit on a significant-digits basis alone; plus the

uncertainty/variability of these cited point-value figures is rarely if ever

reported.

In general, no measurement is ever perfect and always has an uncertainty

associated with it. So in modern metrology, interval ranges are normally cited

along with a best estimate. For example, in a serious scientific study, one

might try to measure the " normal " body temperature of apparently healthy

individuals over a random sample of say several thousand people and find the

average to be 98.2 F, with 95% of the measured values to be centrally located

between 97.5 and 98.5 F (ie, 2.5% in each tail of the distribution). This means

2.5% of the people in the sample have " normal " body temperatures below 97.5 and

another 2.5% have body temperatures above 98.5 (very close to the proclaimed

" text-book " normal body temperature of 98.6 F).

Realizing the significance of this example should give you greater insight to

the subject of measurement and uncertainty in a more general sense and permit

you to think critically about single numbers that are presented alone (without

their properly quantified uncertainties) as conclusive science.

Lead In Article and Reader Comments:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/whats-your-temperature-rethinking-986/

Main Article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/29real.html?_r=1

If you have any problem accessing this information, contact me directly.

Rad

P.S. On a related note, every member here would do well to spend the time

searching the archives for articles and comments by Dr. Gammill. Wow,

what a wealth of knowledge this gentleman has! Many thanks for sharing your

valuable insights and comments here, !

> > " ...My children and others in our family routinely ran fevers

> >attaining anywhere from 103 - 105 with no ill effects other than

> >feeling lousy... "

>

> It is often beneficial to buttress fevers with added heat. Problems

> are rare as long as hydration and electrolytes are attended to and

> " medicines " are avoided.

>