Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

FYI:

'The amount of cholesterol in your blood is measured in units called
millimoles per litre of blood, usually shortened to "mmol/litre" or
"mmol/l". America uses the units milligrams per decilitre of blood:
"mg/dl" instead. Current UK guidelines state that it is desirable to
have a total cholesterol level under 5mmol/l, and an LDL level under
3mmol/l.'

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/cholesterol.html

Interesting that "they" have changed from mass per unit volume to
number of molecules in a unit volume. Changes it from a measurement to
counting?

--
Rod

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course)

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm. He
did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later French
scientists.

You sure about that. I haven't looked up Mouton but I would have thought
a 10" pendulum would have been a one second pendulum - ie one complete
cycle or 2 beats a second. Grandfather clocks have 2 second pendulums
and tick once a second.

but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

I think you and I might be much the same age but I was taught that the
cgs system was metric. ISO metric only dates back to 1960.

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

"1790

Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the
United States.

Interestingly, that seems to have been based upon Mouton's work,
rather than
on the system then being developed in France.

France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a
reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the
development of the first "metric" system."

It is more usually credited to Talleyrand and the French Revolutionary
National Assembly

The Bastille fell in 1789. In 1790 Louis XVI still had his head but not
his liberty but he could have authorised the start of the work the year
before or even earlier. It wouldn't have been finished overnight. The
French revolution could even have delayed the introduction of the metric
system.

--
Roger Chapman

Ed Sirett wrote:
It reminds me of a lab experiment as
college we had a gas engine to test out (circa 1904)

You were in college in 1904? :P

Andy

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course) but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

"1790

Thomas Jefferson proposed a decimal-based measurement system for the
United States.

France's Louis XVI authorized scientific investigations aimed at a
reform of French weights and measures. These investigations led to the
development of the first "metric" system."

Being a Merkin site Jefferson gets first mention for 1790 but the link
to his actual report refers to sources in his possession on the subject.
A French one which is only to be expected but also a British one.

There was a program on BBC2 last year about the Englishman who first
proposed the metric system

unfortunately I missed it, I bet I have it on DVD though



--
geoff

The message
from geoff contains these words:

Being a Merkin site Jefferson gets first mention for 1790 but the link
to his actual report refers to sources in his possession on the subject.
A French one which is only to be expected but also a British one.

There was a program on BBC2 last year about the Englishman who first
proposed the metric system

One of the links says:

"!the speech of Sir John Riggs Miller, of April 13th, in the British
House of Commons"

Maybe MPs in those days had a better grasp of science than the current crop.

unfortunately I missed it, I bet I have it on DVD though

Be interested to know who it was.

Could be Miller who, according to wikipedia, seems to have been a
leading light in the quest for a metric system based on a pendulum. One
of histories big ifs I suppose. If the then Foreign Secretary had jumped
the other way we might have all grown up with a version of the metric
system based on the 2 second pendulum (rather than the circumference of
the earth) and with little or no knowledge of Imperial units.
--
Roger Chapman

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course)

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm. He
did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later French
scientists.

You sure about that. I haven't looked up Mouton but I would have thought
a 10" pendulum would have been a one second pendulum - ie one complete
cycle or 2 beats a second. Grandfather clocks have 2 second pendulums
and tick once a second.

but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

I think you and I might be much the same age but I was taught that the
cgs system was metric. ISO metric only dates back to 1960.

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

YEah - first year university

together with degrees rankine

Came across degrees reamur first on a work of art in germany


--
geoff

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Ed Sirett wrote:
It reminds me of a lab experiment as college we had a gas engine to
test out (circa 1904)

You were in college in 1904? :P

He wears it well ...

--
geoff

The message
from geoff contains these words:

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

YEah - first year university

together with degrees rankine

IIRC Rankine was on a par with Kelvin when I did A level Physics. (1960-62)

Came across degrees reamur first on a work of art in germany

That didn't ring a bell at all but Google kindly inserted a u and vague
memories of eightieths came flooding back. Memories I think of a
previous mention on this ng. :-)

--
Roger Chapman

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)


FYI:

'The amount of cholesterol in your blood is measured in units called
millimoles per litre of blood, usually shortened to "mmol/litre" or
"mmol/l". America uses the units milligrams per decilitre of blood:
"mg/dl" instead. Current UK guidelines state that it is desirable to
have a total cholesterol level under 5mmol/l, and an LDL level under
3mmol/l.'

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/cholesterol.html

Interesting that "they" have changed from mass per unit volume to
number of molecules in a unit volume.

If you know the molecular weight of what is being measured, it's the
same thing, and biochemistry 'traditionally' uses molar measurements.

Current thinking (well, my doctor's anyway) is that it's the *ratio* of LDL
to HDL that's more important than the total amount cholesterol in the blood.
So if it's the ratio that's quoted, that is of course dimensionless.

LDL = low density lipoprotein or "bad" cholesterol HDL = high density
lipoprotein or "good" cholesterol

--
LSR (just started on statins...was 6.1 now 3.3)

Roger wrote:
The message
from geoff contains these words:

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

YEah - first year university

together with degrees rankine

IIRC Rankine was on a par with Kelvin when I did A level Physics. (1960-62)

Came across degrees reamur first on a work of art in germany

That didn't ring a bell at all but Google kindly inserted a u and vague
memories of eightieths came flooding back. Memories I think of a
previous mention on this ng. :-)

Which reminds me that Fahrenheit chose the freezing/boiling points on
his scale to be 180 degrees apart - two right angles/half a circle -
with normal human blood temperature at approximately one right angle
above freezing/below boiling. (Which obviously also applies to Rankine.)

--
Rod

The message
from Rod contains these words:

IIRC Rankine was on a par with Kelvin when I did A level Physics.
(1960-62)

Came across degrees reamur first on a work of art in germany

That didn't ring a bell at all but Google kindly inserted a u and vague
memories of eightieths came flooding back. Memories I think of a
previous mention on this ng. :-)

Which reminds me that Fahrenheit chose the freezing/boiling points on
his scale to be 180 degrees apart - two right angles/half a circle -
with normal human blood temperature at approximately one right angle
above freezing/below boiling. (Which obviously also applies to Rankine.)

The tale I heard (maybe also on Usenet) was that F decided on 100
degrees as blood heat and choose Mrs F as datum. Unfortunately Mrs F had
a chronic illness and was running hot. That doesn't seem to square with
the 180 degrees except by accident. Perhaps he just used 100 as a first
approximation.

The other fact about temperature scales that bears repeating is the
renaming of Centigrade as Celsius.

In some obscure backwaters of Europe (and possibly elsewhere) a Grad is
a right angle and a Centigrad marginally smaller than a degree so in
order to avoid confusion a sensible name for a scale based on 100
degrees was abandoned for a name originally applied to really unsensible
temperature scale.

"Celsius founded the Uppsala Astronomical Observatory in 1741, and in
1742 he proposed the Celsius temperature scale in a paper to the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences. His thermometer had 100 for the freezing
point of water and 0 for the boiling point. The scale was reversed by
Carolus Linnaeus in 1745, to how it is today".

--
Roger Chapman

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember geoff saying
something like:

It reminds me of a lab experiment as college we had a gas engine to
test out (circa 1904)

You were in college in 1904? :P

He wears it well ...

Little old-fashioned, but...
--

Dave

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

--
geoff

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

FYI:

'The amount of cholesterol in your blood is measured in units called
millimoles per litre of blood, usually shortened to "mmol/litre" or
"mmol/l". America uses the units milligrams per decilitre of blood:
"mg/dl" instead. Current UK guidelines state that it is desirable to
have a total cholesterol level under 5mmol/l, and an LDL level under
3mmol/l.'

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/cholesterol.html

Interesting that "they" have changed from mass per unit volume to
number of molecules in a unit volume.

If you know the molecular weight of what is being measured, it's the same thing,
and biochemistry 'traditionally' uses molar measurements.


Indeed - which makes me wonder why the US perpetuates lots of mass-based
measurements in medicine.

Oh - and cholesterol levels are likely to be raised in people who suffer
from hypothyroidism.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a common, serious condition with an insidious onset
and is often undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org

measure twice cut once..

sometimes i do my measuring in both metric and inches,
so if the pencil marks the same place
then ive probably got my sums right!

at the moment im measuring my garden in local yards,
which are about a metre,
but adjusted so theres a whole number of yards
between walls and fences and things
so i can do it on squared paper
for marking which plant is where...

dont know if this is a good idea!

On 2008-03-05 10:32:12 +0000, "LSR" said:

Huge wrote:
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)


FYI:

'The amount of cholesterol in your blood is measured in units called
millimoles per litre of blood, usually shortened to "mmol/litre" or
"mmol/l". America uses the units milligrams per decilitre of blood:
"mg/dl" instead. Current UK guidelines state that it is desirable to
have a total cholesterol level under 5mmol/l, and an LDL level under
3mmol/l.'

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/cholesterol.html

Interesting that "they" have changed from mass per unit volume to
number of molecules in a unit volume.

If you know the molecular weight of what is being measured, it's the
same thing, and biochemistry 'traditionally' uses molar measurements.

Current thinking (well, my doctor's anyway) is that it's the *ratio* of LDL
to HDL that's more important than the total amount cholesterol in the blood.
So if it's the ratio that's quoted, that is of course dimensionless.

LDL = low density lipoprotein or "bad" cholesterol HDL = high density
lipoprotein or "good" cholesterol

It's actually more complex than that because triglycerides are or
should be taken into account, also in ratios.

The whole thing about total cholesterol level dates back some years to
when it was decided by NICE and others that the populace would be
unable to understand anything more complicated than a single number,
even though that single number is pretty much useless.

Then that was extended a bit into "good" and "bad" cholesterol because
it was thought that people might just about grasp that and the slides
from the Framingham Study would be trotted out.

Nowadays ratios have become considered to be more important, and some
effort is being put into raising of HDL levels as well as lowering LDLs.

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.
5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to kill.
And don't even bother to measure thyroid hormone levels.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a common, serious condition with an insidious onset
and is often undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course)

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm.
He
did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later
French
scientists.

You sure about that. I haven't looked up Mouton but I would have thought
a 10" pendulum would have been a one second pendulum - ie one complete
cycle or 2 beats a second. Grandfather clocks have 2 second pendulums
and tick once a second.

That is what the books say. However, it may be a difference in nomenclature
over time, like the Roman pace being the distance between the same foot
striking the ground twice and the modern pace being the distance between
opposite feet striking the ground.

but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the
centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

I think you and I might be much the same age but I was taught that the
cgs system was metric. ISO metric only dates back to 1960.

The young man inside me is rather wondering what he was doing at a
great-grandson's christening last year. However, I was taught that the cgs
was a derivative of the metric system, better suited to scientific
measurements, rather than being a system in its own rights.

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

My only exposure to it was as a mention in a list of units in an American
textbook we used at University.

The Bastille fell in 1789. In 1790 Louis XVI still had his head but not
his liberty but he could have authorised the start of the work the year
before or even earlier. It wouldn't have been finished overnight. The
French revolution could even have delayed the introduction of the metric
system.

I was taught that the metric system was introduced by the French
Revolutionaries as part of their attempts to do away with all the trappings
of the old Monarchy. ISTR there were other, much shorter lived, changes in
the same vein. Measuring the distance from the top to the bottom of France
took six years and cost a number of surveyors their lives, as someone had
decided they should use large white flags to mark their survey points.
Unfortunately, a number of local revolutionary committees took exception to
men flying the Royalist colours from hill tops.

Colin Bignell

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from Rod contains these words:

IIRC Rankine was on a par with Kelvin when I did A level Physics.
(1960-62)

Came across degrees reamur first on a work of art in germany

That didn't ring a bell at all but Google kindly inserted a u and vague
memories of eightieths came flooding back. Memories I think of a
previous mention on this ng. :-)

Which reminds me that Fahrenheit chose the freezing/boiling points on
his scale to be 180 degrees apart - two right angles/half a circle -
with normal human blood temperature at approximately one right angle
above freezing/below boiling. (Which obviously also applies to Rankine.)

That is pure urban legend. He proposed a scale of 100 degrees that ran from
the freezing point of saturated brine to human blood temperature.

The tale I heard (maybe also on Usenet) was that F decided on 100
degrees as blood heat and choose Mrs F as datum. Unfortunately Mrs F had
a chronic illness and was running hot. That doesn't seem to square with
the 180 degrees except by accident. Perhaps he just used 100 as a first
approximation.

That rather begs the question of how, if he only used one measurement from
one person, he knew that blood heat was a reliable fixed point. There is
some medical evidence that, due to a large number of low-grade infections
being present, 100F is probably the average temperature of a population
without access to modern sanitation and hygiene. It seems it is that we have
changed, rather than him getting it wrong.

Réaumur is interesting in that his scale only had a single fixed point - the
freezing point of pure water. His degrees were determined by being each
displaced along the thermometer tube by 1/1000 of the volume of the bulb and
tube up to the zero point.

Colin Bignell

The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

snip

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm.
He did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later
French scientists.

You sure about that. I haven't looked up Mouton but I would have thought
a 10" pendulum would have been a one second pendulum - ie one complete
cycle or 2 beats a second. Grandfather clocks have 2 second pendulums
and tick once a second.

That is what the books say. However, it may be a difference in nomenclature
over time, like the Roman pace being the distance between the same foot
striking the ground twice and the modern pace being the distance between
opposite feet striking the ground.

Wikipedia has an interesting piece on Gabriel Moulton which insists that
his units were also based on the circumference of the earth and it was
for practical reasons he proposed a pendulum of 20.54cm (not a one
second pendulum) by todays measurements. I can't resist quoting the
final line of the entry:

"By today's measures, his milliare corresponds directly to a nautical
mile, and his virga would by definition have been 1.852 m."

1.852 m is as near as damn-it 2 yards. (fraction under an inch more if
my calculator is to be relied on).


but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the
centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

I think you and I might be much the same age but I was taught that the
cgs system was metric. ISO metric only dates back to 1960.

The young man inside me is rather wondering what he was doing at a
great-grandson's christening last year. However, I was taught that the cgs
was a derivative of the metric system, better suited to scientific
measurements, rather than being a system in its own rights.

You certainly went to a better school than me. I was always considered
rather good at maths and it was a terrible shock when I first looked at
one of my A Level maths papers to see it stuffed full of questions on
2nd order differential equations when I didn't even know what one was,
let alone that they were ridiculously easy to solve. One of the reasons
why I passed 2 A levels and failed two even though I only sat three.
(General Paper was O* level in those days IIRC but I failed that as
well).

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

My only exposure to it was as a mention in a list of units in an American
textbook we used at University.

I didn't say I actually used the the unit. IIRC we always defaulted to
poundals but the seemingly ridiculous name for the unit kept it in my
mind all these years and while looking up something in an old text book
recently I actually came across an example that used slugs.

The Bastille fell in 1789. In 1790 Louis XVI still had his head but not
his liberty but he could have authorised the start of the work the year
before or even earlier. It wouldn't have been finished overnight. The
French revolution could even have delayed the introduction of the metric
system.

I was taught that the metric system was introduced by the French
Revolutionaries as part of their attempts to do away with all the trappings
of the old Monarchy. ISTR there were other, much shorter lived, changes in
the same vein. Measuring the distance from the top to the bottom of France
took six years and cost a number of surveyors their lives, as someone had
decided they should use large white flags to mark their survey points.
Unfortunately, a number of local revolutionary committees took exception to
men flying the Royalist colours from hill tops.

I had to drop history (and biology) early in order to continue with
chemistry (and geography). a choice that didn't do me any good at all.
Most of what I now know of history comes from subsequent reading, etc.

--
Roger Chapman

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

I think you may well be right Frank. My GP seems desperate to convince me I
am diabetic dispite the lack of any evidence or symptoms. My paramedic
daughter reckons they have targets to achieve and since I could be 'at risk'
they are trying to treat me for something I might develop.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Rod wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this
to say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.
5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to
kill. And don't even bother to measure thyroid hormone levels.

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The drugs
companies must be laughing all the way to the bank. Little if any evidence
that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack when he wanted to put
me on them.

His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart from
wasting NHS resource of course.

My paramedic daughter has never attended a cardiac patient who wasn't on
statins.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On 2008-03-06 01:01:09 +0000, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

Indeed. There is large bunce to be had here and negotiation can be
made. This time last year (getting towards the end of the financial
year) I was able to agree with my GP an increase in test strip
prescription to an appropriate level in exchange for agreeing to have a
couple of tests done before the end of March.

On 2008-03-06 07:59:02 +0000, Rod said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.
5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to kill.
And don't even bother to measure thyroid hormone levels.

Rhabdomyolysis through statins is fairly rare and tends to be linked to
certain ones. Nonetheless, liver and kidney function tests in
addition to thyroid tests should be done. Needless to say, the NHS
only offers the cheaper of the thyroid tests unless one pushes the
point, if necessary with the PCT. Alternatively, being friendly to
the phlebotomist is a help in order to get more boxes ticked on the
computer. Insisting on getting the printed results (not just the
tell patient normal remark) is important too.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-06 07:59:02 +0000, Rod said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.
5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to
kill. And don't even bother to measure thyroid hormone levels.

Rhabdomyolysis through statins is fairly rare and tends to be linked to
certain ones. Nonetheless, liver and kidney function tests in
addition to thyroid tests should be done. Needless to say, the NHS only
offers the cheaper of the thyroid tests unless one pushes the point, if
necessary with the PCT. Alternatively, being friendly to the
phlebotomist is a help in order to get more boxes ticked on the
computer. Insisting on getting the printed results (not just the
tell patient normal remark) is important too.


Our NHS lab simply will not do anything but TSH to begin with. fT4
follows if and only if the TSH is very low. It doesn't matter how many
boxes are ticked (by doctor, phlebotomist or patient :-) ) - they do not
get done. (A very long story is associated with my partner being
authorised to get fT4/fT3 by special and exceptional permission.) And
yes, numbers and reference ranges are vital.

Unfortunately, hypothyroidism tends to increase cholesterol levels which
makes sufferers prime candidates for being prescribed statins.
Rhabdomyolysis is considerably more likely in hypothyroid sufferers
given statins (and yes, specific ones are worse than others). The
problems do seem to occur because of ignorant doctors prescribing
statins without checking and is made more likely by the number of people
who are hypothyroid but don't know it/haven't been diagnosed.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 2008-03-06 20:12:12 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Rod wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this
to say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.
5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

And then they put the person with high cholesterol onto statins. Which
are "so safe they should be added to the water supply" (or some such
********), ignoring their capacity to cause rhabdomyolysis and to
kill. And don't even bother to measure thyroid hormone levels.

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The drugs
companies must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Some are, although many products have become generics.


Little if any evidence
that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack when he wanted to put
me on them.

It's a fairly generic response to a fairly wide range of situations.
There are several lifestyle alternatves to many of the causes of
hypercholesterolaemia that are as effective as statins.



His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart from
wasting NHS resource of course.

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.



My paramedic daughter has never attended a cardiac patient who wasn't on
statins.

That's not a strong argument. All of these things are based on risk
factor. If a particular therapy reduces risk for a given age and
medical condition group, then anothe way to look at it is that for the
same probability, the age at which it equalises becomes extended.

Said a different way, if the therapy results in patients having the
same probability of a CVE at age 75 that they would have had at age 60
then it is probably worthwhile, especially if the dependency on long
trm care is reduced.

One can't make a deduction that statins or any other therapy aren't
worthwhile based on what the ambulance service collects. An
alternatie conclusion that also fits is that such patients have been
effectively identified by their PCP and had a statin prescribed.
That may have been rather later than would have been useful to make a
large difference to outcome in some cases, but may well have done in
others. That conclusion can only be drawn from a large study
population over many years, not from an ambulance log book.

On 2008-03-06 20:08:31 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this to
say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

I think you may well be right Frank. My GP seems desperate to convince me I
am diabetic dispite the lack of any evidence or symptoms.

He must have some evidence or reason.

The measurements are easy enough to make and completely standardised by NICE.

It's a DIY job with a blood glucose meter and two measurements of
fasting blood glucose of 7mmol/ml.

There are various other impairment conditions such as insulin
resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, syndrome X etc. which don't
quite meet those criteria. An initial identification of these can
be made using the above equipment and a bottle of Lucozade.

Having said that, it's becoming increasingly clear that diabetes does
not fit into the previously neatly defined type 1 and type 2
categories. There is a lot of research in this area.

It isn't at all desirable to wait until there are symptoms, because
frankly they are not pleasant. If you are in a questionmark range,
I'd ask for a referal or second opinion. For a lot of people,
treatment can be a choice between lifestyle changes and popping a white
pill. Doctors also know that most patients would prefer the latter,
and the white pills are very cheap indeed.

Either way, I would look past the targets nonsense and look at number
one, and not wait until there are symptoms that are not reversible.



My paramedic
daughter reckons they have targets to achieve and since I could be 'at risk'
they are trying to treat me for something I might develop.

There are targets for diabetic care and bunce for it, that is true.
Even the NHS manages a half respectable job in some areas, although
would prefer to organise a 3-6 monthly test of how treatment is working
as opposed to the means for patients to manage themselves on a daily
basis. That's a cost issue pure and simple.

On 2008-03-06 21:02:27 +0000, Rod said:

Our NHS lab simply will not do anything but TSH to begin with. fT4
follows if and only if the TSH is very low. It doesn't matter how many
boxes are ticked (by doctor, phlebotomist or patient :-) ) - they do
not get done. (A very long story is associated with my partner being
authorised to get fT4/fT3 by special and exceptional permission.) And
yes, numbers and reference ranges are vital.

Unfortunately, hypothyroidism tends to increase cholesterol levels
which makes sufferers prime candidates for being prescribed statins.
Rhabdomyolysis is considerably more likely in hypothyroid sufferers
given statins (and yes, specific ones are worse than others). The
problems do seem to occur because of ignorant doctors prescribing
statins without checking and is made more likely by the number of
people who are hypothyroid but don't know it/haven't been diagnosed.

Yes I understand completely.

Even worse is that there are substantial differences between what is
considered normal between one country and another in the area of
thyroid hormones.

I've just been having that precise discussion with the local PCT and
had additional testing agreed. Threat of escalation was required.
I don't have time to be a squeaky wheel.

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:12:12 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The drugs
companies must be laughing all the way to the bank. Little if any evidence
that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack when he wanted to put
me on them.

They work on me. They made a fairly dramatic difference to my
cholesterol levels.

Unfortunately the side effects were too severe to continue with them.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

In message , nightjar
writes

"Roger" wrote in message
. uk...
The message
from "nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk contains these words:

Chuck the book away then as it wasn't the French.

Who, then, in your opinion did originate the metric system, if not the
French Academy of Sciences at the request, in 1790, of the National
Assembly?

That seems to be the widely held view but a search I did found a site
(http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/dates.htm) that gave the initial
credit for the metric system to a French vicar in 1670 (still French of
course)

While Gabriel Mouton is claimed to be the spirtual father of the metric
system, his base unit of length would have been the swing length of a
pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second, which is roughly 25cm.
He
did, however, provide the central ideas that were developed by later
French
scientists.

You sure about that. I haven't looked up Mouton but I would have thought
a 10" pendulum would have been a one second pendulum - ie one complete
cycle or 2 beats a second. Grandfather clocks have 2 second pendulums
and tick once a second.

That is what the books say. However, it may be a difference in nomenclature
over time, like the Roman pace being the distance between the same foot
striking the ground twice and the modern pace being the distance between
opposite feet striking the ground.

but credited a first mention of a decimal system to Simon Stevin
(a Flemish mathematician and engineer) in 1585.

I would view a defining quality of the metric system to be that is based
upon the metre, rather than simply being decimal. Otherwise, the
centimetre
/ gram / second system I was taught at school (along with the metre /
kilogram / second and foot / pound / second systems) would be equally
qualified for the name.

I think you and I might be much the same age but I was taught that the
cgs system was metric. ISO metric only dates back to 1960.

The young man inside me is rather wondering what he was doing at a
great-grandson's christening last year. However, I was taught that the cgs
was a derivative of the metric system, better suited to scientific
measurements, rather than being a system in its own rights.

Incidentally at what stage did you come across the slug? I never saw as
much as a mention of the unit until I got to college.

My only exposure to it was as a mention in a list of units in an American
textbook we used at University.

The Bastille fell in 1789. In 1790 Louis XVI still had his head but not
his liberty but he could have authorised the start of the work the year
before or even earlier. It wouldn't have been finished overnight. The
French revolution could even have delayed the introduction of the metric
system.

I was taught that the metric system was introduced by the French
Revolutionaries as part of their attempts to do away with all the trappings
of the old Monarchy. ISTR there were other, much shorter lived, changes in
the same vein. Measuring the distance from the top to the bottom of France
took six years and cost a number of surveyors their lives, as someone had
decided they should use large white flags to mark their survey points.
Unfortunately, a number of local revolutionary committees took exception to
men flying the Royalist colours from hill tops.

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
lots snipped
The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though


Hence Le Meridien hotels.

Peut-être.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

On 2008-03-06 22:31:50 +0000, Rod said:

geoff wrote:
lots snipped
The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though


Hence Le Meridien hotels.

Peut-être.

Accor ding to you.

Andy Hall wrote:
About the NHS and statins

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

So, if the entire number of posters bought an axe and gave major surgery
to the NHS, we could have it done by the end of next week :-)

Dave

geoff wrote:
SNIP

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
..

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The
drugs companies must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Some are, although many products have become generics.


Little if any evidence
that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack when he
wanted to put me on them.

It's a fairly generic response to a fairly wide range of situations.
There are several lifestyle alternatves to many of the causes of
hypercholesterolaemia that are as effective as statins.



His rather limp reply was that they wouldn't do me any harm. Apart
from wasting NHS resource of course.

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

It certainly isn't a non issue. Prescribing something of doubtful value &
justifying it because they are 'cheap' is a terrible waste of limited
resource. If they are cheap & prescribed by the million its still lots of
money.



My paramedic daughter has never attended a cardiac patient who
wasn't on statins.

That's not a strong argument. All of these things are based on risk
factor. If a particular therapy reduces risk for a given age and
medical condition group, then anothe way to look at it is that for the
same probability, the age at which it equalises becomes extended.

I rather think it is. If statins were the wonder drug they are claimed to
be my daughter would be picking up people who didn't take them.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 20:12:12 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

I reckon statins are the biggest con trick in medical history. The
drugs companies must be laughing all the way to the bank. Little if
any evidence that they do any good. I discussed this with my quack
when he wanted to put me on them.

They work on me. They made a fairly dramatic difference to my
cholesterol levels.

Unfortunately the side effects were too severe to continue with them.

Exactly the point Bob. Apart from the waste of resource & the side effects
there is no clear evidence that high/bad cholesterol levels cause CV
attacks. So why blanket precribe them.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-03-06 01:01:09 +0000, Frank Erskine
said:

On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:12:07 GMT, geoff had this
to say:

In message , Huge
writes
On 2008-03-04, Rod wrote:
Ed Sirett wrote:
snip

I have no idea what units blood cholesterol is measured in I just
know that 5.5 is pretty bad and 2.5 is pretty good.

5.5 ain't so bad. 8.6 is bad. (Don't ask me how I know...)

The year before last, 6.0 was OK

it isn't now

So a change of goalposts gives me a high cholesterol level now

This is usually the case with NHS staff, who are noted for job
creation.

I'm pretty certain that NHS GP practices are given large cash
allowances determined by their supposed 'at risk' patients, so they
tend to exaggerate such to maximise their profits.

Indeed. There is large bunce to be had here and negotiation can be
made. This time last year (getting towards the end of the financial
year) I was able to agree with my GP an increase in test strip
prescription to an appropriate level in exchange for agreeing to have
a couple of tests done before the end of March.

Which makes a complete mockery of the NHS. You shouldn't have to do 'deals'
with your GP. You get better healthcare if he gets better 'target meeting'
help from you?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
SNIP

The French also have their own 0 meridian, I don't know if that
originated in the same way

It seems that the rest of the world pretty much ignored it though

Thats because we have rules. Where would we be without rules eh?


Chatham ?

--
geoff

On 2008-03-06 23:06:40 +0000, Dave said:

Andy Hall wrote:
About the NHS and statins

Generic statins are cheap so this is a non issue. The funding path
between our pockets and the point of delivery of healthcare is the
actual waste of resource, which is why the NHS as currently arranged
should receive major surgery.

So, if the entire number of posters bought an axe and gave major
surgery to the NHS, we could have it done by the end of next week :-)

Dave

No, but one has to start somewhere.