[OT] Historical facts about Nicotine.

[Storm Raven]

Man, I am soooooo tired of fools thinking the McDonald's Coffee case is the end-all-be-all of frivolous lawsuits.

Man, I am sooooo tired of folks taking information and using it out of context in a vain effort to prove that a frivolous lawsuit is actually not frivolous.

2) During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to the Victims

And in that same period McDonalds sold literally hundreds of millions of cups of coffee, and had an amazingly low injury claim rate. I believe that based on the documents and other data about McDonald's sales of coffee during the relevant period, it sold something on the order of 15-20 million cups of coffee for every injury claim.

How a product that is allegedly as dangerous as alarmists like yourself make it out to be is consumed safely by tens of millions of people on a regular basis is a mystery to everyone who actually looks at the issue and puts it into context.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

What is your point? The coffee sold by McD's at the time was sold at a temperature hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and came with no warning label saying so. One could argue that a person should know coffee is hot but that does not hold up since McD's coffee was sold at a temp 30-40 degree HOTTER than anyone elses coffee so a person buying that coffee has no personal experience to go on to know the potential danger.

And in that same period McDonalds sold literally hundreds of millions of cups of coffee, and had an amazingly low injury claim rate. I believe that based on the documents and other data about McDonald's sales of coffee during the relevant period, it sold something on the order of 15-20 million cups of coffee for every injury claim.

How a product that is allegedly as dangerous as alarmists like yourself make it out to be is consumed safely by tens of millions of people on a regular basis is a mystery to everyone who actually looks at the issue and puts it into context. [/B]

 

[Florin]

Have anything to back that up or are you being a rude for no reason at all?

Well, Eosin is an RN, so I'll consider him a mostly informed source.

 

[Eosin the Red]

Have anything to back that up or are you being a rude for no reason at all?

Sure, ***quick look**** the primary database I use at work has 198 references. If you would like I can get something off of the shelf ~ we have a full tox library with every major toxicological peer reviewed publication released in North America.

The second part - you have edited the top post which originally contained some blatantly false information (and on second look still does, just not as over the top). My post would have been kinder, if your first post wasn't so obviously alarmist and misleading.

Nicotine is bad - nicotine kills, both in the short run and in chronic use. We do not need to make up information to demonstrate that it is a vile substance. When people spread false information, it undermines the the very real dangers of nicotine.

You claim to give us historical fact - better back that up when you make claims as exaggerated as they were (and still are really). My tone is in direct relationship to your authority on the subject.

a few references are:
9. AMA Department of Drugs: Drug Evaluation Subscription. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, 1991.
17. Baselt RC & Cravey RH: Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man, 4th ed. Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, IL, 1995.
24. Benowitz NL, Jacob P, Jones RT et al: Interindividual variability in the metabolism and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in man. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1982; 221:368-372.

Let me know if you need more - you can find most of these on OVID at any medical university or the condesensed and reviewed information is on Poisondex(R) managements database.

Change the title to 'Things I heard about Nicotine' and I will give you far more leeway and generally be a nicer guy.

 

[mmadsen]

I earlier quoted a web page I stumbled across ( Anticholinesterase Poisons) that put the lethal dose of nicotine at ~300 mg:

A well-known alkaloid that blocks receptor sites in a manner similar to that of curare and atropine is nicotine. This powerful poison causes stimulation and then depression of the central nervous system. The probable lethal dose for a 70-kg person is less than 0.3 g.

The National Capital Poison Center (at poison.org) puts the lethal dose at "approximately 40 to 60 mg (0.6 - 0.9 mg/kg)" -- an even smaller dose. Are they even more mistaken than the other web site?

Anyway, here's what they consider mild poisoning:

Mild symptoms of poisoning may include nausea, abdominal cramps, and tremor following ingestions of 2 to 5 mg of nicotine. One cigarette can contain 8 to 20 mg of nicotine, although the amount of nicotine absorbed during smoking is only 0.05 to 2.5 mg. A cigar contains up to 40 mg of nicotine.

 

[Eosin the Red]

mmaddsen -

This is tricky all of a sudden - and hard to explain. There is also a bit of a professional bind here - you quoted my boss (kinda, we are decentralized but share the same governing body).

40-60 mg is the correct estimation for nicotine.

0.3 g has been used for nicotine sulfate as an estimated lethal level. NS is considered far more toxic than nicotine. I have never before seen 0.3 g of nicotine used as a toxic level - so I made the leap to nicotine sulfate, the EPA designated "supertoxic" cousin of Nicotine. That was a bit of an error on my part, after closely reading the referred website, they do indeed mean nicotine. They give a grossly wrong toxic level but nicotine is what they intended.

Nicotine is considered highly toxic by Poison Control but it is not a red flag item - meaning that it is evaluated on a case by case basis, as opposed to methanol which is an automatic ED referral.

So now comes the confusing part - NS, dimethylmercury, & parathion are all rated supertoxic but estimated lethality is greater than 1 g, not much greater but greater. Here my lack of an rPh or chamistry degree shows - I do not really know why nictotine is only highly toxic (EPA level 3) vs NS, DMM, & Parathions supertoxic (EPA level 6). I think it has to do with available forms and ease of exposure.

Nicotine as it is found in plants & products requires a significant ingestion 1 cig might kill an infant and 5 cigs have killed a toddler (found on autopsy), I have yet to see any data on how many cigs it would take to do in a 70 kg man.

NS can kill with an estimated 6-7 drops on skin!

The data previously quoted does come from an interesting website but quoting a non-govermental web site is still poor form in science/health discussions. I looked closely at the site to see if I could see what was going on. [Note: I missed that the site is referenced up top first time through]. I have no idea where they get the 0.3 g maybe in '93 that was how it was expressed? but 300 mg should kill you, me, SHARK, DocM, Morrus, and PC (although, as mentioned survival has been reported after a 4 g exposure). 0.3 g is still wrong.

The confusing part:
40-60 mg of nicotine = estimated lethal level
0.3g (actually 350 mg) of NS = estimate lethal level

NS = more toxic.

Confusing huh? Maybe a chemist can explain it better?

In the same vein of IANAL, since both my employer and my profession are brought up in this topic - this is not medical advice and on these boards, I do not represent my employer. Strickly IMO ~ just with references.

Further replies will need to be addressed to my e-mail - eosin_the_red@cox.net. For me, suddenly and by wild chance this conversation has turned professional , instead of being one of my pet peeves (WAGs presented as fact). But I am happy to address any other questions or problems you have with my assessment, just not where I have to agonize over the legal/ethical implications of what I am posting.

 

[WayneLigon]

And in that same period McDonalds sold literally hundreds of millions of cups of coffee, and had an amazingly low injury claim [/B]

Another report on the 'Multi Million Dollar Coffee Lawsuit' urban myth.

I had a player bring up the deadliness of nicotine in a game several years ago; his vigilante in fact used a pure serum of it in some poison bullets. Pretty cool.

Wish I'd been able to convince my Mom of it. She smoked for fifty some-odd years, and now I get to watch her die a slow death from emphysema.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I don't know whether many people follow up links off site, but in my day job I'm webmaster at the Royal College of Physicians of London.

Last year we published a major report "Nicotine Addiction in Britain", and in line with our publication policy have now made the full text available for free on our web site.

The link is here http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/books/nicotine/index.htm

with chapter 2 perhaps giving some of the most interesting information about Physical and pharmacological effects of nicotine.

Cheers

 

[Storm Raven]

Another report on the 'Multi Million Dollar Coffee Lawsuit' urban myth.

A report which contains infomration entirely irrelevant to my point: millions of cups of McDonalds's coffee were sold under exactly the same conditions, and yet there were proportionally almost no injuries resulting from the consumption of those cups.

When one in every 15-20 million units sold results in an injury, claims that the product was dangerous, or negligently made are frivolous. There are more injuries caused by table lamps on a unit basis than caused by McDonalds coffee. Should table lamps be considered dangerous too?

 

[Storm Raven]

What is your point? The coffee sold by McD's at the time was sold at a temperature hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns and came with no warning label saying so. One could argue that a person should know coffee is hot but that does not hold up since McD's coffee was sold at a temp 30-40 degree HOTTER than anyone elses coffee so a person buying that coffee has no personal experience to go on to know the potential danger.

No, one could not. The standard of care expected is not unique to the consumer of the product. The standard of care is what a "reasonable person" would do given similar circumstances. McDonalds sold millions of cups of coffee under exactly the same conditions, millions of people managed to consume this "dangerously hot" coffee on a daily basis without injury. When 1 in 15-20 million people injure themselves using a product, whose conduct is reasonable? The 1 injured person or the 14,999,999 uninjured people?

It was a frivolous lawsuit, no matter how much people try to dress it up as something else.