A Small Misconception

Neville J. Angove

I was watching the TV program, "The Boneyard: Biowaste." In a segment on Tennessee's "The Bodyfarm" I was once again treated to a repetition of a common fallacy by someone who should have known better, but was too ignorant to do some elementary fact checking (similar to a 2010 journalist).

The chap who initiated The Bodyfarm commented that mediaeval knights were actually only small people, about five feet in height or so. This is a common fallacy, and the small suits of armour that have survived from this period, along with the fact that many commoner entrances only had small doorways, is used as evidence to support this misconception.

The average height prior to the 1800's was not much more than about five feet. This was due to poor diet. But poor diet was not a constraint amongst the wealthy. These people could afford suits of armour, for example. They could also afford large doors.
Several decades ago a museum guide commented that the kitchen doors to a mansion were small because of the average height of the users. Might be, except kitchen staff were unlikely to be poorly fed. The guide did not comment on why internal doors were as large as we use today, even those not seen by any visitors.

Small doors were common because of expense and defence. It cost money to make a large door or window, and only the wealthy chose to be ostentatious enough to do so. Of course, the back doors used by staff and hidden from view were only as large as needed. Smaller doors could also be only entered sideways, meaning that any invader had his defenceless back to one side.

It is true that a number of famous warriors were small. Admiral Nelson was small, but he had a commoner origin. Boneapart wasn't as small as we think, but he also had a commoner origin. But nobles were well-fed and were fairly large people. In fact, only oversized men could wear suits of armour and wield mediaeval weapons.

Little armour used in mediaeval times survived to this day. A recent survey of Agincourt could only discover one coin and part of a knight's spur. The rest of the metal was salvaged and recycled. The suits of armour that have survived were generally of two types: 90%-scale suits made by armorers as sales aids; or suits made for the adolescent males of wealthy noble households. None saw battle and so needed no recycling.

Anthropologists who have examined mediaeval noble skeletons and surviving armour and weapons, and historians who have looked at the forced evolution of horses, will correct these misconceptions.

This type of unchecked error passes into common knowledge because its suits the misconceptions of those who should correct them. Perhaps we like the idea of the old nobility being smaller than modern man, because it makes us feel better.

Unfortunately (and here I am on my hobbyhorse again), the Internet is very good at perpetuating fallacies, and destroying electronic evidences of the truth.

Deathly Lies

Lies and Incompetence Were Almost the Dearth of Me (and the Death of Me)!

I was trying to understand why I recorded a blood oxygen saturation levels of 99% after just smoking several cigarettes. This test was done using a finger stall. Carbon monoxide binding should have made my oxygen saturation as low as 70% (but at that level, I would need a higher oxygen flow, hence a higher pulse rate and blood pressure in smokers). The normal long term binding is supposed to be about 10% in heavy smokers, and takes weeks after heavy smoking stops to reduce the CO saturation (the red blood cells have to die).

The problem is multifold.

Arterial blood gas analysis machines measure oxygen saturation by using complex calculations based on a number of separate reactions, creating a selection of products whose concentrations are used to interpret the readings obtained. Specifically, large levels of carbon monoxide can skew the results which then need a different interpretation. But a reading of other results obtained simultaneously will indicate that the oxygen saturation results are unreliable. It is better if the analysis is done with the operator already knowing that the blood sample comes from a smoker.


Pulse oximetry use the frequency of light transmitted by the sample. High carbon monoxide levels can skew the results, since oxygen saturation is actually measured as a result of the combination of different results, both of which are affected by CO saturation.

While I was a patient at Bankstown Hospital early in 2007, no account was taken of any possible skewing of my test results, in spite of knowledge that I had been (I was in a coma, and could not smoke anyway) a heavy smoker. No account was taken of the results provided by the blood gas analysis that cast strong doubts on the reliability of the measured oxygen saturation levels.

No test was done on my CO levels, and no venous blood gas analysis was done.

Basically the medical staff saw what they thought they should see, and not what was actually measured.

They were obviously comforted by the fact that the separate monitoring of my blood oxygen saturation via a finger stall also showed a 95% oxygen saturation. But this is a simpler measurement, easily confused. Blood with carbon monoxide saturation actually comes out a brighter red, and when mixed with oxygen-saturated blood, inflates the measured oxygen saturation levels.

Unfortunately, the correct interpretation of these results is beyond the competence of even the most highly qualified nurses in public hopsitals. The doctors, who believe that since they can occasionally revive patients who are technically dead, and therefore obviously must have some god-like attributes, are actually worse. Talking to a doctor about a medical issue is like being the customer in the Monty Python dead parrot sketch!

It is no wonder why I, but one of many, suffered severe oxygen stress while in a coma. I can be thankful that the attempts to reduce my blood pressure failed, because if it had been reduced, the oxygen stress would have increased my neural atrophy to the point where I would have not revived.

The alternative view is that if I had died permanently, or been so neurologically challenged that I would be in a home, then I wouldn't have to put up with Banktown Hospital's view that I should stop beiong crippled by them and be thankful I am still alive.

YOU CALL THIS LIVING, YOU BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!

The Uncivil Serpents Win Again

Gillard Gushes, Abbott Has No Costello

Julia Gillard has agreed to the demands of a group of three independents, in order to form a government. Tony Abbott, on the other hand, rejected them outright, displaying a nonchalance that tells me he thinks he knows something.

Accept that the Coalition is completely owned by the Public Service. Accept that Labor follows Public Service advice with no question, because it knows it can be ruined and lose power if it upsets its mandarins.

Then it all makes sense.

The promises made to the independents, although the specifics are not revealed yet, pretty much folllow Labor stated policy (except for the mining superprofits tax).

The public servants have shown the ability to only recommend policy they think should be done, and provide cogent arguments against policy they don't like. The same public servants have been very willing to administer government policy in such a way to minimise benefits to the electorate while maximising embarrassment to the government.

Perhaps Abbott has been promised that Labor will be put in such a damaging position by faulty Public Service advice that it will be forced to renege on its promises to the independents. Only one independent MP has to change his side in a crucial vote and we are heading for a new election.

If Gillard is dumped by Labor, as most predict, that could also provide an impetus for instability. The keeping of promises, even if in name only, is tied closely to the power of the leader of the government.

We will be heading for a general election well short of the three years we are guaranteed. That is certain. What are unknown are the twin answers of when and how.

A confusing issue concerns honesty. This concept is ignored by party politicians, not if they want to keep their seats. But independents must keep their electorates happy. The independents' electorates show a preference for their members to side with the Coalition. Abbott might be counting on this. The problem for the independents is that they choose which government is best for their electorate, and this may not be the choice of the electorate (although they did vote for independent representation).