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

[BillyWJ]

It's really hard to find anyone dying from nicotine poisoning.

Not really very hard to find people dying of water poisoning though...
Woman in water-drinking contest dies - US news - Life | NBC News

I think the key here is it's virtually impossible to get poisoned from nicotine by accident, as it's pure form in lethal dosages doesn't exist in nature, you have to purposely go out of your way to get enough of it to try and kill yourself (or even be exposed to it) - it's not surprising the only examples are suicide attempts.

Just like that poor lady, she had to go to extreme lengths to die from water intoxication - that would be very hard to do by accident, as in any other circumstance, you'd pee it out - they were deliberately not doing that.

 

[Ohms Lawbreaker]

Surprised hotdog poisoning isn't more common.

 

[Nermal]

Yep, and I'll take my chances with both.

 

[pcrdude]

<snip>The toxic effect on the human body as a whole is, of course, dose dependent.
<snip>

True. Now you're getting it!



There ya go. Good job. The rest of your post was really not germaine to the debate. Naturally occuring or not, doesn't matter. Instrinsic LD50, stoichiometry, phase of the moon, etc.

Your appeal to (your own) authority notwithstanding, the science of toxicology TODAY operates on the "dose makes the poison" principle.

PLEASE read the links I posted earlier.

 

[Baldr]

Two UK suicides using nicotine extracted fr... [Forensic Sci Int. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

So you managed to find a couple of people who died from it intentionally. If you are *trying* to die, water will kill you, too.

I don't think that example really changes the point.

 

[pcrdude]

Well, ckn71nm would classify caffeine as a poison as well. Also any beneficial drugs such as antibiotics, aspirin, and probably many other lifesaving drugs.

Let's hope he never gets an MRSA infection, only to have his live saved by the poisonous vancomycin!

Maybe he can walk ionto the nearest Starbucks and pursuade everythone that they are drinking poison.

Throwing around the term "poison" like that is irresponsible, since THE DOSE IS INTRINSICALLY LINKED TO THE EFFECT!!!

The reason I get irked about this subject is people are using the word "poison" for dramatic purposes, when the most relevant scientific discipline (Toxicology), uses the term "level of toxicity" to more accurately reflect what is really happening.

 

[pcrdude]

Today on Yahoo (about caffeine):

The Five Scariest Things Caffeine Does to Your Body

Quote:
Caffeine increases dopamine levels in the same way as ...... and crack. Its effect is much weaker of course, but the mechanism is the same.

Quote:
Caffeine consumption equivalent to more than two cups of coffee per day has been linked to fallopian tubal disease and endometriosis, both of which can cause female infertility.

Quote:
Caffeine has been linked to hip fractures in a large study following American women for six years. Caffeine increases urinary loss of calcium. Many nutritionally oriented doctors recommend decreasing caffeine intake from caffeinated coffee, black tea, and cola drinks as a way to improve bone mass.

Quote:
So where do you draw the line? According to Dr. Wylde's pal Dr Oz, for most people, moderate doses of caffeine (200-300mg, which is equivalent to a little bit over a tall cup at Starbucks) are not harmful.

 

[ckn71nm]

So you managed to find a couple of people who died from it intentionally. If you are *trying* to die, water will kill you, too.

I don't think that example really changes the point.

Of course you don't think so. Because it doesn't prove your point.

 

[ckn71nm]

Well, ckn71nm would classify caffeine as a poison as well. Also any beneficial drugs such as antibiotics, aspirin, and probably many other lifesaving drugs.

Let's hope he never gets an MRSA infection, only to have his live saved by the poisonous vancomycin!

Maybe he can walk ionto the nearest Starbucks and pursuade everythone that they are drinking poison.

Throwing around the term "poison" like that is irresponsible, since THE DOSE IS INTRINSICALLY LINKED TO THE EFFECT!!!

The reason I get irked about this subject is people are using the word "poison" for dramatic purposes, when the most relevant scientific discipline (Toxicology), uses the term "level of toxicity" to more accurately reflect what is really happening.

Today on Yahoo (about caffeine):

The Five Scariest Things Caffeine Does to Your Body

Quote:
Caffeine increases dopamine levels in the same way as ...... and crack. Its effect is much weaker of course, but the mechanism is the same.

Quote:
Caffeine consumption equivalent to more than two cups of coffee per day has been linked to fallopian tubal disease and endometriosis, both of which can cause female infertility.

Quote:
Caffeine has been linked to hip fractures in a large study following American women for six years. Caffeine increases urinary loss of calcium. Many nutritionally oriented doctors recommend decreasing caffeine intake from caffeinated coffee, black tea, and cola drinks as a way to improve bone mass.

Quote:
So where do you draw the line? According to Dr. Wylde's pal Dr Oz, for most people, moderate doses of caffeine (200-300mg, which is equivalent to a little bit over a tall cup at Starbucks) are not harmful.

I'm perfectly happy to lose the term poison. I'm not sure what the two posts of you I cited are supposed to be in the context of this discussion.

First of all, yes, I would consider caffeine a chemical with highly toxic properties. Along with many antibiotics and cancer chemotherapy. That doesn't mean I would put them in the same class of harmful chemicals. Unlike the OP how want's to put nicotine int same class with pretty much everything else.

Second, I don't have any problem having my live saved by a chemical with highly toxic properties. I still hope that I won't get an MRSA infection.

I'm not sure how that is supposed to go against my argument.

One thing that gets on my nerves is that the "level of toxicity" principle is used by people like the OP to make an argument that some substance is not all that dangerous because, after all, everything is dangerous.

 

[DC2]

One thing that gets on my nerves is that the "level of toxicity" principle is used by people like the OP to make an argument that some substance is not all that dangerous because, after all, everything is dangerous.

If you ever see anyone making that kind of absurd argument, please let me know.

 

[ckn71nm]

Which method did they use, and what was the concentration they extracted? This could be a valuable addition to ECF, as there are threads indicating that useful extraction is quite complex.

That particular article doesn't give any methods of extraction. They didn't have to. All they had to do was measure the concentration of nicotine in bodily fluids. I can't link to the full text since it is not a free article. I can only access it through my work. But apparently the extraction method is out there on the internet. I would not recommend attempting it though.

 

[pcrdude]

I don't agree that the OP was stating that nicotine has the same level of toxicity as water. The OP (IMHO), was simply (and correctly) stating that all substances can be harmful at high enough levels.

My position is that nothing is a poison, and that substances vary in their level of toxicity.

And ckn71nm, I'm glad that your posts are moving away from the term "poison" and now you are using level of toxicity.

Well done.

 

[ckn71nm]

If you ever see anyone making that kind of absurd argument, please let me know.

Don't let anyone tell you nicotine is a poison...
And if they do, be prepared to educate them.

First of all, what is a poison?
Well, I guess the bottom line is that a poison is something that will kill you.

So what will kill you?
Everything.

Did I say everything?
Yes I did.

Are you telling me that this is not exactly that?

You make the statement that education is needed when someone says nicotine is a poison. Then you go on educating by saying everything will kill you and therefore everything, including nicotine should be treated the same.

pdrdude must be really mad at you for using the term poison that often.

 

[ckn71nm]

Well done.

Really? I'd appreciate it if stop patronizing me.

 

[ckn71nm]

I don't agree that the OP was stating that nicotine has the same level of toxicity as water. The OP (IMHO), was simply (and correctly) stating that all substances can be harmful at high enough levels.

My position is that nothing is a poison, and that substances vary in their level of toxicity.

And ckn71nm, I'm glad that your posts are moving away from the term "poison" and now you are using level of toxicity.

Well done.

I agree that the OP didn't say water is as toxic as nicotine. I interpret his post as him saying that nicotine is not a poison because everything is toxic at certain levels and that's why you can't single out nicotine and treat it differently than water.

 

[ckn71nm]

True. Now you're getting it!

The problem is you are not getting it.

There ya go. Good job.

Patronizing me is not going to help you make more sense.

Taking my argument, chopping it up and use part of it to make it look like I'm agreeing with you is actually kind of rude.

I'm not agreeing with you. I know you keep on going back to your Toxicology 101, trying to make the argument that because everything is toxic at some concentration on the physiological level, we can't single certain thing out that are more harmful than others, and call them something different in order for non scientist to be aware of the danger.

I agree. Everything has a lethal dose. Everything has the potential to kill you. I draw a line. That line is rooted in practical application of toxicology in research and real live. That line is the biochemistry of things. You stick with undergrad toxicology, I stick with research. Fine with me.

OK, on a different note. 4 posts in row and I'm getting more and more frustrated with each one. I'm finding the ignorance about the actual process and inner workings of science on this thread disturbing. I'm going to retire from this thread. Don't want to have a heart attack and be in need of some toxins to save my life.

 

[DC2]

Are you telling me that this is not exactly that?

You make the statement that education is needed when someone says nicotine is a poison. Then you go on educating by saying everything will kill you and therefore everything, including nicotine should be treated the same.

pdrdude must be really mad at you for using the term poison that often.

I never said nicotine should be treated the same as everything else.
And I sure as hell never said that nicotine is not dangerous.

I object to the word "poison" being used in connection with electronic cigarettes.
It's as simple as that.

 

[pcrdude]

The problem is you are not getting it.



Patronizing me is not going to help you make more sense.

Taking my argument, chopping it up and use part of it to make it look like I'm agreeing with you is actually kind of rude.

I'm not agreeing with you. I know you keep on going back to your Toxicology 101, trying to make the argument that because everything is toxic at some concentration on the physiological level, we can't single certain thing out that are more harmful than others, and call them something different in order for non scientist to be aware of the danger.

I agree. Everything has a lethal dose. Everything has the potential to kill you. I draw a line. That line is rooted in practical application of toxicology in research and real live. That line is the biochemistry of things. You stick with undergrad toxicology, I stick with research. Fine with me.

OK, on a different note. 4 posts in row and I'm getting more and more frustrated with each one. I'm finding the ignorance about the actual process and inner workings of science on this thread disturbing. I'm going to retire from this thread. Don't want to have a heart attack and be in need of some toxins to save my life.

What I told you was to go back and read the links I posted to the Society of Toxicologists, Cornel University, etc. I supported my points with links to authoritative sources (not toxicology 101). You made claims based on stoichiometry of ...... interactions, and some other such nonsense. Further, you attempted to bolster your position with a claim that you 'worked in a lab'.

Really?

Do I have to go back in this thread and re-post the sources I used?

 

[ckn71nm]

I never said nicotine should be treated the same as everything else.
And I sure as hell never said that nicotine is not dangerous.

I object to the word "poison" being used in connection with electronic cigarettes.
It's as simple as that.

Are you telling me that I got all worked up over a misunderstanding? Darn...

Why didn't you title our OP "Don't let anyone tell you that electronic cigarettes are poison"? And if that was your point why is there no mention of electronic cigarettes in your original post?

Anyway, in that case I guess I agree with you.

 

[ckn71nm]

What I told you was to go back and read the links I posted to the Society of Toxicologists, Cornel University, etc. I supported my points with links to authoritative sources (not toxicology 101). You made claims based on stoichiometry of ...... interactions, and some other such nonsense. Further, you attempted to bolster your position with a claim that you 'worked in a lab'.

Really?

Do I have to go back in this thread and re-post the sources I used?

No, you don't have to go back. I went through them, and still stick to my points.

I feel personally attacked by your last post. The mode of action of sildenafill and the mode of action of any substance is relevant when it comes to evaluating its toxicity. Its not nonsense.

I make the claim of having worked in lab? Are you saying you know that I don't? In fact I'm writing this on my computer in the lab hoping that my PI won't notice that I'm doing this instead of my job. I was using it to bolster my position. Not to lift myself above anyone, but to point out that I in fact have experience in the scientific process and, for the most part, know what I'm talking about. You mentioned in an earlier post that you did lot's of research to be able to prove your point. It shows. And isn't that bolstering your position?

Now the literature you posted.

A book on Amazon, even though based on research, is study material.
The Cornell bit (Assesing Toxic Risk: Student Edition), even though based on research, is study material

My point from the earlier post was that teaching toxicology is different than doing the research. Lines get a little blurry and shifted. Something you can't do teaching. My assessment of what toxicity means is based in research not teaching. I have the feeling that the only position you can take because of the reading you did on the subject, makes it impossible for you to argue with me on the level of research. Is that why you feel the need to personally attack me and doubt that I work in lab? If I have, in any previous post, attacked you personally I apologize and I hope we can refrain from doing so in the future.

How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self-experiments in the nineteenth century - Springer
Intravenous Nicotine and Caffeine: Subjective and Physiological Effects in ....... Abusers

Good articles. They don't however dispute in any way the biochemical mode of action. Which is my starting point.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/25qna.html?_r=1&

A NYT Q&A essentially saying that you probably wont die form a caffeine overdose drinking coffee but might if you drink to much energy drinks. OK, agreed.