Doctors warn there are biological limits to temperatures we can survive, and exposure to extreme heat can provoke a heart attack

Australia’s southern states are scorching in extreme heat that could break temperature records in Victoria and South Australia on Tuesday.

At Ouyen and Mildura in north-west Victoria, temperatures of 49C were forecast for Tuesday afternoon. If reached, they would break the state’s all-time temperature record of 48.8C, set in Hopetoun on Black Saturday in 2009. By 1pm, temperatures of 46.2C in Ouyen and 44.8C in Mildura had been recorded.

At Ouyen and Mildura in north-west Victoria, temperatures of 49C were forecast for Tuesday afternoon. If reached, they would break the state’s all-time temperature record of 48.8C, set in Hopetoun on Black Saturday in 2009. By 1pm, temperatures of 46.2C in Ouyen and 44.8C in Mildura had been recorded.

In Adelaide, the mercury hit 40C before 9.30am on Tuesday, after overnight lows of 35C, BoM observations showed.

Extreme heat is the most common cause of weather-related hospitalisations in Australia, and kills more people than all other natural hazards combined. What does exposure to extreme heat – such as a temperature of 49C – do to the body?

  • stoy@lemmy.zipEnglish
    5·
    1 day ago

    I am sorry, but you are wrong, however you are not wrong at what you might expect me to call you out on.

    There is nothing inherently superior with F for “habitable” temps, both C and F works fine for that, for me who is used to C, talking about body temps of 37 makes sense to me, for me 98.6 seems completely wrong.

    It all boils down to what we are used to.

    • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      3·
      1 day ago

      It’s funny how it’s supposed to be great to measure “human temperatures”, yet 98.6 is normal and 100 is a fever.

      • Ach@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        23 hours ago

        I agree that celcius is better, but this is a terrible point. This would be a biological reaction. Different topic.

        • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          2·
          11 hours ago

          Terrible point? The body temperature is literally the upper defining point of the scale. Except that Fahrenheit chose that point to be 96, and he was still wrong.

          • Ach@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 hours ago

            Yes, it uses the the human body in a healthy state to determine a range of habitable temperatures. There is no math involved that is even remotely concerned with temperatures in a sick person. Not my opinion. Fahrenheit factors in general habitability, it doesn’t take into consideration something like a specific group of elderly people who’s temperature runs low due to low blood pressure.

            • floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              1·
              10 hours ago

              Whoa that’s a lot of being butthurt about nothing.

              I’m just saying, if you’re going to make a scale that is defined by body temperature, why tf would you make that point 98.6 or 96 instead of 100? The “you need to remember 37” argument doesn’t make much sense if you need to remember 98.6 does it?

              • Ach@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                9 hours ago

                You are not reading me. I am 100% agreeing with you that the scale is fucking stupid and illogical. I’m trying to point out that it does not, no matter how much you say, consider someone with a virus or illness.

                I’m saying to make the point we both agree on, it’s valuable to understand this.

    • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      10 hours ago

      You may be shocked to discover that we can also measure the temperature of water in F.

      Your talking right and wrong is beside the point. No one scale is superior for any use, strictly speaking. The point is that 1-100 in F relates in an intuitive way to the range of human habitation. That’s a more intuitive thing to base a scale on in my opinion. Now tell me my opinion is wrong, I dare ya!

      • stoy@lemmy.zipEnglish
        21·
        22 hours ago
        1. You never mentioned this being subjective in your earlier post, it read as if you presented facts.
        2. C is highly intuitive, at 0 water turns to ice, at 100 it boils. Simple to understand, and just as in F you have temperature ranges that you have learned are suitable for different things.
        • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          9 hours ago

          Do you respond to everything everyone tells you with a complaint that they haven’t already told you it before? This is a discussion. I’m not defending a written doctorate thesis.

          C is highly intuitive if you are a water molecule. Absolutely brilliant for those chaps. Wait… I have assumed this whole time you are human. Are you a water molecule?? You never mentioned that before!!

          • stoy@lemmy.zipEnglish
            21·
            9 hours ago

            You brought it up in a completely irrelevant post, do you always bring uo irrelevant point in a discussion and get annoyed when people discuss your irreleveant tooic?

            • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              6 hours ago

              It is in fact getting to be a bit of a hobby to mention Fahrenheit’s good points, just to see people wet themselves and complain when their worldview shatters.