Don't let anyone tell you that nicotine is a poison...

[pcrdude]

Wow the level of hypocrisy there is incredible.

Thanks!!!!

Did you read the SOT link where they dismissed the term poison?

 

[pcrdude]

Its not 50mg/kg though, that would mean that you would need to consume 3500mg of nicotine LD/50 for a 70kg person, which is not the case.

Even though the value for nicotine is incorrect, are you starting to grasp the concept of dose response?

 

[CES]

So, I'm not quite sure why I'm jumping back in. From what i can see, every agrees that respect and care should be taken with nicotine and other substances that have the potential to harm. People probably know to keep nicotine out of the hands of little kids, and most people will even keep chocolate out of reach of the little ones.

At this point the argument is about semantics. But semantics are important, especially as we try to educate others and keep vaping safe and available...

which conversation makes more sense to have?

"ermagod!!- you're vaping poison"

"it's only a little bit and I'm ok with that"

"but..but..but it's gonna kill me too. stop it right now"

"no, no, really it's just a teensy bit"

"NO! it's poison. stop it right now"



I'd prefer

"ermagod!!- you're vaping poison"

"no, not really. The amounts I use are at levels that have not been found to be harmful. "

...further discussion can then ensue. I might or might not be able to convince someone but i have a better chance of doing so if i choose my words for accuracy and open discussion rather than incite fear by poor word choice.

 

[generic mutant]

For gm to accuse someone else of being condescending is kinda cute dontcha think?

The term poison is meaningless with out taking dose into consideration. The applicable area of science is toxicology, and that is their position on the matter. I posted a link to an article for the layperson descibing their position on the matter. You two ignored it, and resorted to using logical fallacies to debate your positions.

I even gave you the page number so you wouldn't have to read the entire document.

The term poison is not without meaning.

It isn't precisely defined, but it means roughly "things we encounter that are chemically harmful in the concentrations we encounter them".

Do you accept that there is a category of substances you might have around your house that you don't let kids or pets near, because they are sufficiently toxic in small quantities that they represent a real hazard? That you don't ever let them get near, and that you clean up any spills of immediately when they're around?

What do you call these things?

 

[DC2]

Its not 50mg/kg though, that would mean that you would need to consume 3500mg of nicotine LD/50 for a 70kg person, which is not the case. You edited out the bit that says "3-50mg/kg"...

No, it didn't say "3-50mg/kg" it said 50mg/kg for rats and 3.3mg/kg for mice.
I chose the number for rats because I wanted to.

Even 1000mg would be 14mg/kg, 500 would be 7mg/kg and 70 would be 1mg/kg, assuming the person is 70kg.

Which would still make it less toxic than cyanide and strychnine according to Wikipedia.

 

[Nirk]

Even though the value for nicotine is incorrect, are you starting to grasp the concept of dose response?

You try and make other people look stupid probably because you have issues. Seriously do not try to patronise me or anyone else, it is you that looks dumb here not anyone else.

 

[pcrdude]

The term poison is not without meaning.

It isn't precisely defined, but it means roughly "things we encounter that are chemically harmful in the concentrations we encounter them".

Do you accept that there is a category of substances you might have around your house that you don't let kids or pets near, because they are sufficiently toxic in small quantities that they represent a real hazard? That you don't ever let them get near, and that you clean up any spills of immediately when they're around?

What do you call these things?

When referring to the intrinsic properties of a substance, it is meaningless. It is meaningless without regard to dosage. I have given plenty of examples....

Oh wait, you didn't tell me if warfarin is a poison or a medicine....

Some substances are more toxic than others. That's how I think about it. Really.

Here is some more information from someone at Cornell:

http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf

 

[pcrdude]

You try and make other people look stupid probably because you have issues. Seriously do not try to patronise me or anyone else, it is you that looks dumb here not anyone else.

ad hominem

I support my position with links to external authorities on the subject. You use logical fallacies.

 

[Nirk]

Which would still make it less toxic than cyanide and strychnine according to Wikipedia.

Well there are no specific numbers for any of them, they are all similar in potency anyway. Nicotine is not harmless even at the amounts that are used in eliquid, it has been linked to increased cancer growth, vasoconstriction, various other things, however it is obviously a lot better than smoking but if you think it is harmless, even at low concentrations, then you are kidding yourself.

 

[Nirk]

ad hominem

I support my position with links to external authorities on the subject. You use logical fallacies.

Meh i'm not even responding to you anymore.

 

[generic mutant]

When referring to the intrinsic properties of a substance, it is meaningless. It is meaningless without regard to dosage. I have given plenty of examples....

Oh wait, you didn't tell me if warfarin is a poison or a medicine....

Some substances are more toxic than others. That's how I think about it. Really.

Here is some more information from someone at Cornell:

http://ei.cornell.edu/teacher/pdf/ATR/ATR_Chapter1_X.pdf

And I'm not disputing that that's technically true (never have), I'm just pointing out that that isn't how most people think about it.

There is a *real* conceptual category of things called poisons. The fact that it is without solid scientific foundation is completely irrelevant. There is a *real* conceptual category of people called 'black people' too.

To pretty much any uninvolved party nicotine would rank as a poison.

 

[CES]

And I'm not disputing that that's technically true (never have), I'm just pointing out that that isn't how most people think about it.

There is a *real* conceptual category of things called poisons. The fact that it is without solid scientific foundation is completely irrelevant. There is a *real* conceptual category of people called 'black people' too.

To pretty much any uninvolved party nicotine would rank as a poison.

and isn't this why we want to use the best available terminology, and help educate people?

 

[DC2]

Well there are no specific numbers for any of them, they are all similar in potency anyway. Nicotine is not harmless even at the amounts that are used in eliquid, it has been linked to increased cancer growth, vasoconstriction, various other things, however it is obviously a lot better than smoking but if you think it is harmless, even at low concentrations, then you are kidding yourself.

Why would I bother wasting my time disputing that nicotine is more potent than cyanide and strychnine?

The reason I did that is for the same reason I made this thread.
If you get the point of this thread, you will understand.

 

[Nirk]

and isn't this why we want to use the best available terminology, and help educate people?

Educate people about what? Do you have a degree in dose related nicotine toxicity? No.

 

[generic mutant]

and isn't this why we want to use the best available terminology, and help educate people?

Yes, absolutely. And if someone asks me whether nicotine is a poison I'd probably say something along the lines of "Yes, pure nicotine is extremely toxic. But in the doses I'm using it at its risk profile is probably roughly comparable to caffeine".

 

[pcrdude]

And I'm not disputing that that's technically true (never have), I'm just pointing out that that isn't how most people think about it.

There is a *real* conceptual category of things called poisons. The fact that it is without solid scientific foundation is completely irrelevant. There is a *real* conceptual category of people called 'black people' too.

To pretty much any uninvolved party nicotine would rank as a poison.

Oh good! Now all you have to do is show evidence from "any uninvolved party".

Who are they again????

 

[Nirk]

Oh good! Now all you have to do is show evidence from "any uninvolved party".

Why are they again????

I already posted where nicotine comes from, the definition of the words etc.

 

[pcrdude]

I already posted where nicotine comes from, the definition of the words etc.

What does that have to do with toxicology? Ya know, the Science of Toxicity???

I thought you were leaving....

Welcome back!

 

[Nirk]

What does that have to do with toxicology? Ya know, the Science of Toxicity???

I thought you were leaving....

Welcome back!

It is concerning the title of this thread and the discussion of whether nicotine is a poison, which by every possible definition of the word, it is. I understand what you are saying but maybe the thread title should be less misleading.

For example :

"Is nicotine dangerous at the doses used in vaping"

 

[DC2]

It is concerning the title of this thread and the discussion of whether nicotine is a poison, which by every possible definition of the word, it is. I understand what you are saying but maybe the thread title should be less misleading.

If you're not comfortable with the title of the thread you can ask the moderators to change it.
If they agree with you they will do so.