Archaeologica.org

The problem with that RS is that fish doesn't prevent Scurvy, and secondly the same point about not stopping applied after the discovery that fruit and veg prevented it.
Had they known earlier they could have taken the same steps to prevent the disease that they took subsequently.

Roy.

Digit wrote:The problem with that RS is that fish doesn't prevent Scurvy,

I didn't say it did. (Though cod does)!

and secondly the same point about not stopping applied after the discovery that fruit and veg prevented it.
Had they known earlier they could have taken the same steps to prevent the disease that they took subsequently.

Yeah, but they didn't know (earlier), did they?

That's what I said. Cod liver oil is, not sure about the flesh though.

Roy.

Digit wrote:That's what I said. Cod liver oil is, not sure about the flesh though.

If cod (flesh) is a considerable, fixed part of your diet, you get enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy.
That much I know.
Which leads me to suspect that (some) other fish species' flesh/oil may have the same or similar properties.

BTW, another source of vitamin C in humans is exposure to sunlight. But 17th century Europeans didn't tan...

But 17th century Europeans didn't tan...

Do you mean they didn't sun bathe or that they didn't darken under the sun?

Roy.

What do you think?

I wouldn't have asked if I knew.

Roy.

Digit wrote:I wouldn't have asked if I knew.

OK, then let me fill this gaping void in your knowledge for you:
Europeans'/caucasians' skins tend to discolour when exposed to sunlight for any length of time. Curious, isn't it? In the 20th and 21st centuries the acquistion processes for such a "tan" became a favorite fashionable pastime (with pros and cons), a.k.a. tanning or sunbathing. But in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries a skin darkened from exposure to the sun was frowned upon. It was very UNfashionable, because it signalled that you were a lowly labourer who had to work outdoors for a living.
17th, 18th, and 19th centuries' Europeans/caucasians tried purposely to stay out of the sun as much as possible.

17th, 18th, and 19th centuries' Europeans/caucasians tried purposely to stay out of the sun as much as possible.

Agreed, but there was/is no gaping hole. Tanning is the result of exposure, not the act of exposing, hence my question 'cos they mean two different things in English, so there!

Roy.

Digit wrote:

17th, 18th, and 19th centuries' Europeans/caucasians tried purposely to stay out of the sun as much as possible.

Agreed, but there was/is no gaping hole. Tanning is the result of exposure, not the act of exposing, hence my question 'cos they mean two different things in English, so there!

No, 'tanning' is not the result of exposure to sunlight. A 'tan' is. Quite contrary to "tanning is the result of exposure, not the act of exposing", "tanning" is a verb denoting the very act of exposing to sunlight in order to acquire a "tan", a darker skin colour.

If English is your mother tongue I think you need to study it a a tad more...

Nope! Tanning is is a process, done to produce leather, a tan is the result of that process.
But it depends on the usage. Despite your comment, 'a tan,' is as you say the result, but in my comment I could correctly write as I did or I could have written, 'a tan is the result etc,' sorry to disagree.....

But 17th century Europeans didn't tan

... and that in English means that they didn't go brown....

No, 'tanning' is not the result of exposure to sunlight. A 'tan' is.

... as you confirm there.

Roy.

And BTW RS, for the umpteenth time of telling, Humans do not produce Vitamin C!!!
Here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_C

Or are you now claiming to be more knowledgeable than the medical profession as well?

Roy.

Digit wrote:"Or are you now claiming to be more knowledgeable than the medical profession as well?"

Amazing, those were the exact prosecutor's words straight out of hundreds of inquisition trials, or communist/fascist show trials...
(Substitute any field or profession for "medical").

What's also amazing is the manner in which you drag up an irrelevance to avoid answering the question. The same tactic used by Uni as well.

Roy.

I don't have the temerity to presume to be able to answer every detailed question. So I don't.

Unlike many. Who doggedly follow dogma, and attack dissent.

We have this expression that I don't know the English equivalent of (but I'm sure there is one) that rather applies, imo. I'll give you the literal translation:

One fool can ask more in one hour than 7 wise men can answer in a thousand years.