|LETTER TO EDITOR
|Year : 2007 | Volume
| Issue : 1 | Page : 52
KS Prabhu, CR Srinivas, S Nair, SV Sundaram, M Thirumurthy
Department of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, India
C R Srinivas
Department of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Peelamedu, Coimbatore - 641 004, Tamil Nadu
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Prabhu K S, Srinivas C R, Nair S, Sundaram S V, Thirumurthy M. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 2007;73:52
|How to cite this URL:|
Prabhu K S, Srinivas C R, Nair S, Sundaram S V, Thirumurthy M. Authors' reply. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol [serial online] 2007 [cited 2020 Aug 8];73:52. Available from: http://www.ijdvl.com/text.asp?2007/73/1/52/30656
We thank the author of 'The real greenhouse effect' for the explanation regarding green house effect. In fact, we aware of the same and would like draw an analogy with the greenhouses, which work by preventing convection of the heated ground beneath. We used the hood to prevent the heat from flowing away as described in the letter. Instead of heat from the sun, we tried to trap the heat liberated from the body. It is like placing the sun inside. Patients with toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) have a high BMR and liberate a lot of heat.
There is also a small misconception about the heater being placed inside the hood to increase the temperature and humidity. The heater was used only in the experimental model, whereas in real life situation, the patient with TEN will replace the heater and the liberated heat by him which is to be trapped to increase his ambient temperature.
We realize that we were not absolutely right in stating that green house effect was used in toto . We just exploited a part of the greenhouse factor.