Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 25-11-2004, 09:19 PM
Pam - gardengal
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Cereus-validus..." wrote:

It is not a myth. Poinsettias are indeed toxic. Eat them and you will

get
very ill and vomit. That is most certainly a toxic reaction. What they

are
not is DEADLY LETHAL!!!


Numerous studies have been conducted on poinsettias feeding them to rats
looking for a toxic level of exposure. There is none. They would rarely
even induce vomiting, though that's a personal response, one can vomit
from eating anything from one blade of grass to too many Muskateer bars.
Rat studies on poinsettias as a major part of diet found no toxic effects
whatsoever, zip, nada.


All of the above, including the rest of the post now snipped, is quite
true - toxicity of poinsettias if ingested is exremely low. However internal
consumption is hardly the problem. If anyone has worked with euphorbias
(poinsettia = Euphorbia pulcherrima) of any kind, they are aware that the
white latex (sap) emitted by the plant is a caustic agent. Reactions may be
different acording to individual sensitivities, but it can produce
dermatitis and blistering and most certainly occular irritation including
keratoconjunctivitis. This is the largest risk for kids or pets nibbling or
ingesting the plant - not that they would eat it but rather the latex could
affect delicate and sensitive tissues. Avoid getting the latex near any
mucous membranes and if at all possible, off of bare skin. If the plant is
damaged or broken, and the latex is touched, wash it off immediately.

I have worked with euphorbs for years and am well aware myself of the
properties of the latex and it has never bothered me, so I tended to
discount its causticness myself. However, my 14 y.o. daughter did contract a
rather impressive case of phytodermatitis from the plant this summer, simply
by applying price tags to nursery containers. Apparently, she is one of
those with particular sensitivity to it. The blisters lasted for nearly two
weeks and required a doctor's attention.

pam - gardengal


  #2   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 05:00 PM
madgardener
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:_%rpd.150651$R05.19634@attbi_s53...
All of the above, including the rest of the post now snipped, is quite
true - toxicity of poinsettias if ingested is exremely low. However

internal
consumption is hardly the problem. If anyone has worked with euphorbias
(poinsettia = Euphorbia pulcherrima) of any kind, they are aware that the
white latex (sap) emitted by the plant is a caustic agent. Reactions may

be
different acording to individual sensitivities, but it can produce
dermatitis and blistering and most certainly occular irritation including
keratoconjunctivitis. This is the largest risk for kids or pets nibbling

or
ingesting the plant - not that they would eat it but rather the latex

could
affect delicate and sensitive tissues. Avoid getting the latex near any
mucous membranes and if at all possible, off of bare skin. If the plant is
damaged or broken, and the latex is touched, wash it off immediately.

I have worked with euphorbs for years and am well aware myself of the
properties of the latex and it has never bothered me, so I tended to
discount its causticness myself. However, my 14 y.o. daughter did contract

a
rather impressive case of phytodermatitis from the plant this summer,

simply
by applying price tags to nursery containers. Apparently, she is one of
those with particular sensitivity to it. The blisters lasted for nearly

two
weeks and required a doctor's attention.


And that might be because she was diabetic. My grandmammy as I recall broke
out when handling the poinsettia that was given her around Christmas when
she "fooled with it" and so the task of caring for it during the Christmas
season fell onto Pearline who adored and loved any flower or
plant....(another recessed memory regarding my sweet Aunt Pearline who was
responsible for my gardening madness surfaces.....)
madgardener who believes that poinsettia's are not TOXIC.....can be
irritating to some people and who loves all the diversities of the
poinsettia's but doesn't grow or have them herself (my cacti and succulents
and few tropicals and ferns suffer enough in my warm, dry house, thank you)
up on the ridge, back in Fairy Holler, overlooking English Mountain in
Eastern Tennessee

pam - gardengal




  #3   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 09:05 PM
Cereus-validus...
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do with
diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also know as
coincidence.


"madgardener" wrote in message
...

"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:_%rpd.150651$R05.19634@attbi_s53...
All of the above, including the rest of the post now snipped, is quite
true - toxicity of poinsettias if ingested is exremely low. However

internal
consumption is hardly the problem. If anyone has worked with euphorbias
(poinsettia = Euphorbia pulcherrima) of any kind, they are aware that

the
white latex (sap) emitted by the plant is a caustic agent. Reactions may

be
different acording to individual sensitivities, but it can produce
dermatitis and blistering and most certainly occular irritation

including
keratoconjunctivitis. This is the largest risk for kids or pets nibbling

or
ingesting the plant - not that they would eat it but rather the latex

could
affect delicate and sensitive tissues. Avoid getting the latex near any
mucous membranes and if at all possible, off of bare skin. If the plant

is
damaged or broken, and the latex is touched, wash it off immediately.

I have worked with euphorbs for years and am well aware myself of the
properties of the latex and it has never bothered me, so I tended to
discount its causticness myself. However, my 14 y.o. daughter did

contract
a
rather impressive case of phytodermatitis from the plant this summer,

simply
by applying price tags to nursery containers. Apparently, she is one of
those with particular sensitivity to it. The blisters lasted for nearly

two
weeks and required a doctor's attention.


And that might be because she was diabetic. My grandmammy as I recall

broke
out when handling the poinsettia that was given her around Christmas when
she "fooled with it" and so the task of caring for it during the Christmas
season fell onto Pearline who adored and loved any flower or
plant....(another recessed memory regarding my sweet Aunt Pearline who was
responsible for my gardening madness surfaces.....)
madgardener who believes that poinsettia's are not TOXIC.....can be
irritating to some people and who loves all the diversities of the
poinsettia's but doesn't grow or have them herself (my cacti and

succulents
and few tropicals and ferns suffer enough in my warm, dry house, thank

you)
up on the ridge, back in Fairy Holler, overlooking English Mountain in
Eastern Tennessee

pam - gardengal






  #4   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 09:44 PM
Jim Carlock
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Cereus-validus..." wrote:
Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do
with diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also
know as coincidence.


I'll go along with that. However it could be that there was
an allergic reaction to the poinsettas that caused the diabetes.

My logic for that goes like this. Diabetes is usually considered
an autoimmunal disease where the pancreatic cells that produce
insulin are attacked and killed. And if there is an allergy to a
specific substance, that in turn can produce an autoimmunal
response which in turn can kill pancreatic cells and thus the
condition of diabetes becomes present. I don't have any
proof of this being true... just food for thought.

In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

"madgardener" wrote:
And that might be because she was diabetic. My grandmammy
as I recall broke out when handling the poinsettia that was given
her around Christmas when
she "fooled with it" and so the task of caring for it during the Christmas
season fell onto Pearline who adored and loved any flower or
plant...(another recessed memory regarding my sweet Aunt Pearline
who was responsible for my gardening madness surfaces.....)
madgardener who believes that poinsettia's are not TOXIC.....can be
irritating to some people and who loves all the diversities of the
poinsettia's but doesn't grow or have them herself (my cacti
and succulents and few tropicals and ferns suffer enough in my
warm, dry house, thank you)
up on the ridge, back in Fairy Holler, overlooking English Mountain in
Eastern Tennessee



  #5   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 10:11 PM
zxcvbob
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Carlock wrote:

In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.


Better safe than sorry for what?

How is someone going to know what they might be allergic to until they
have their first reaction?

Are you going to ban eggs, milk, wheat and barley and rye products,
shellfish, peanuts, real nuts, soybeans, *and* anything with tomatoes in
it from your house, just in case someone somewhere might be allergic to
them? What if that person ends up a guest in your house, has an
allergic reaction to your cat, and DIES? Then what are you going to do?

(Have I made my point yet that your premise is ridiculous?)

Best regards,
Bob


  #6   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 10:32 PM
paghat
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Jim Carlock"
wrote:

"Cereus-validus..." wrote:
Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do
with diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also
know as coincidence.


I'll go along with that. However it could be that there was
an allergic reaction to the poinsettas that caused the diabetes.

My logic for that goes like this. Diabetes is usually considered
an autoimmunal disease where the pancreatic cells that produce
insulin are attacked and killed. And if there is an allergy to a
specific substance, that in turn can produce an autoimmunal
response which in turn can kill pancreatic cells and thus the
condition of diabetes becomes present. I don't have any
proof of this being true... just food for thought.

In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.


Poinsettia is related to the rubber tree. Someone who authentically has a
latex/rubber allergy already knows to avoid euphorbias, cactuses, rubber
gloves, pencil erasers, pacifiers, balloons, & all sorts of household
items & plants that would not cause the least problem to anyone who does
not have a latex allergy.

The skin irritation potential of poinsettia is otherwise about equal to
that of a dandylion, carrot, tomato, onion, garlic, aster, chrysanthemum,
ginger, magnolia, cedar sawdust, tomato, tulip, or daffodil -- to name a
few things that are commonly associated with contact dermatitis to equal
or greater extent than is poinsettia. Some euphorbias are very likely to
cause a rash & are sufficiently caustic that it would not even require an
allergenic response, but for poinsettia it would not be an ordinary
reaction, because it is not very caustic, though I wouldn't rub it OR a
garlic clove all up & down my naked body.

People with such plant allergies have to be careful handling a great many
plants which would not affect normal people. And while it may be possible
to die of a rash, it certainly isn't likely, & it never happened from
contact with poinsettia. If your rule of thumb is "better safe than sorry"
then you should never touch anything without wearing rubber gloves, & even
then you should worry about a rubber allergy. Of course an INTELLIGENT
person would have much more knowledge & common sense about their allergies
from past experience & ideally some instruction from a physician with a
specialty in allergens, so you WON'T end up a lunatic afraid to move a
muscle.

People with plant allergies usually have some degree of tolerance. So you
could handle daffodils or poinsettias one day & feel no effect, but after
making a big meal chopping up onions, carrots, & tomatoes, or other food
items associated with contact dermatitis, an allergy-prone person may have
reached their limit, so that picking a daffodil or touching poinsettia
could conceivably cause an unexpected rash. If so, that sort of person
would be equally likely to have the accumulative response during dinner,
& get the rash from picking up a piece of raw celery, celery being another
plant associated with contact dermatitis.

The reason people are hystical about this possibility when the word
"poinsettia" is stated but never even think twice about the equal threat
represented by carrots, celery, & onions is because of the myth that
poinsettias are toxic. They're not. The rats in the Ohio study ate
poinsettias using their wee paws & stuffed them in their snouty faces &
there was neither a toxic effect of eating the plants nor a rash response
from handling them. The plants were harmless. And allergenic people for
whom rashes are likely are going to be worrying about a hell of a lot more
than this fundamentally harmless christmas flower.

As for a connection between allergy & diabetes, that's been studied &
found to be a myth as well. Diet can effect both allergic conditions &
diabetes, but the allergy cannot affect diabetes. Here's a little article
intended to alleviate superstitious peoples' worries about their allergies
turning them into diabetics:
http://www.diabetes.org.uk/infocentr...rm/allergy.htm

There is however a connection between allergins that cause rash &
allergins that cause asthma, & asthma CAN kill. So if you want to terrify
yourself, avoid contact with all flowers & all plants of all kinds
forever, as your lungs may swell up & you'll be dead before you can say
"where's my inhaler."

Your decision to avoid harmless stuff "just in case" it's not harmless to
some allergy-prone sniffle-snouted dork, instead of on the basis of
knowledge & possibly with a physician's guidance, will eventually have you
afraid to get out of bed, because you won't believe how many potentially
death-causing allergens are in those dust bunnies under the bed. And while
there is no known case of anyone dying of poinsettias, a number of asthma
deaths can be traced to dustbunnies under the bed & the gazillions of
hideous invisible mites that live in those dustbunnies. Be afraid. Be very
afraid. And tune in next week for The Litterbox Terror.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
  #7   Report Post  
Old 27-11-2004, 10:43 PM
Warren
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Carlock wrote:
"Cereus-validus..." wrote:
Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do
with diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also
know as coincidence.


I'll go along with that. However it could be that there was
an allergic reaction to the poinsettas that caused the diabetes.

My logic for that goes like this. Diabetes is usually considered
an autoimmunal disease where the pancreatic cells that produce
insulin are attacked and killed. And if there is an allergy to a
specific substance, that in turn can produce an autoimmunal
response which in turn can kill pancreatic cells and thus the
condition of diabetes becomes present. I don't have any
proof of this being true... just food for thought.


Gosh. Aren't we all having fun with faulty logic today.

Type I diabetes is caused by a lack of beta cells in the pancreace
resulting in no insulin being created. Type I diabetes is also known as
childhood onset diabetes. It's unusual for it to occur after childhood,
and certainly not from an alergic reaction to something. Any reaction
great enough to kill existing beta cells in the pancrease is likely to
result in death first.

Type II diabetes occurs when the body's cells cannot efficiently use the
insulin produced by the pancrease. Type II diabetes is also known as
adult onset diabetes. It also would not occur because of an alergic
reaction to something. Obesity is the most popular contributing factor
in type II diabetes simply because more cells ineffectively using
insulin eventually outpaces the pancrease's ability to produce insulin
fast enough. No death of pancreatic cells is involved.


In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.


Well, if it's better to be safe than sorry, you'd better climb back into
that bubble. You're constantly coming in contact with things you could
suffer an allergic reaction to.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
See My Christmas Lights:
http://www.holzemville.com/xmas2004/



  #8   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2004, 12:17 AM
Jim Carlock
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Warren" wrote:
Gosh. Aren't we all having fun with faulty logic today.


LOL My logic is not faulty. Sometimes faulty, but I don't
think it is this time. Not yet. You'll have to work alot
harder to convince me I'm wrong. eg

Type I diabetes is caused by a lack of beta cells in the
pancreace resulting in no insulin being created.


Now, what causes the lack of cells? It's an autoimmunal
response that is TRIGGERED. Triggered by what? No
one has ever identified what triggers it. The cells are
attacked and killed and thus without the cells one cannot
and does not produce insulin. Once the cells are identified
as being a contamination to the body the body automatically
sends out the killer cells to kill the pancreatic cells. It IS
an autoimmunal defense. Again I emphasize it is triggered.
No one knows what triggers it. I suggested an allergy
could, that's all. But I think more than likely it results from
an infection of some sort where the cells resemble the
pancreatic insulin producing cells.

Type I diabetes is also known as childhood onset diabetes.
It's unusual for it to occur after childhood, and certainly not
from an alergic reaction to something.


That's almost correct. Type I diabetes can occur at any time
in life. Once your body's defense mechanism kicks in and
starts killing your pancreatic insulin producing cells, you
are then considered a juvenile diabetic. Again, it is triggered
by something, and I'll mention that if your body is put into
a weakened state (ie, allergic reaction)...

Any reaction great enough to kill existing beta cells in the
pancrease is likely to result in death first.


That is UNTRUE 100%. That is a fallacy there. Do not
think of it as the allergy killing the cells. Think of it as an
autoimmune response to a condition, and a cell that the
body identifies as foreign has entered the body. It's not
the allergic reaction, it's the fact that the allergy put the
body into an enweakened state. And with the body being
weaker and and foreign invasions occuring... the body's
defenses going into high gear... and a cell that appears
much like the pancreatic insulin producing cell... BINGO.

Type II diabetes occurs when the body's cells cannot
efficiently use the insulin produced by the pancrease.
Type II diabetes is also known as adult onset diabetes.


I won't argue with that. I'll just add my two cents. :-)
Ask yourself, "Why isn't the body producing as much insulin?"

As you get older, the body stops working the way it used
to in the past. This might mean that you need to eat better,
excercise more to keep up with the way you used to be. It
might mean you need more vitamins. The body might be
lacking in something and usually in these cases it's easy to fix
what is missing.

It also would not occur because of an alergic reaction to
something.


What happens during an allergic reaction? The body gets
weaker. The body becomes more susceptible to disease
and infection. Now, we should qualify this a little more.
We should state that it happens moreso in the worst cases.

Obesity is the most popular contributing factor in type II
diabetes simply because more cells ineffectively using
insulin eventually outpaces the pancrease's ability to
produce insulin fast enough. No death of pancreatic cells
is involved.


The last stuff there doesn't apply to the conversation at
hand. I don't know much about Type II diabetes, other
than it occurs in older folks, have problems with missing
vitamins/minerals and/or have something else can be
identified more specifically.

Well, if it's better to be safe than sorry, you'd better climb
back into that bubble. You're constantly coming in contact
with things you could suffer an allergic reaction to.


That's the story about the "Boy in the Bubble". :-)

If I knew I was allergic to them flowers, I would definitely stay
away from them and I firmly stand behind, "It's better to be
safe than sorry." If I knew bumble bees could kill me, I'd
stay way from those as well. Better to be safe than sorry. I
don't have any fear of wasps or bees, but I do fear ALL
spiders. I stay away from ALL spiders.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

Jim Carlock wrote:
"Cereus-validus..." wrote:
Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do
with diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also
know as coincidence.


I'll go along with that. However it could be that there was
an allergic reaction to the poinsettas that caused the diabetes.

My logic for that goes like this. Diabetes is usually considered
an autoimmunal disease where the pancreatic cells that produce
insulin are attacked and killed. And if there is an allergy to a
specific substance, that in turn can produce an autoimmunal
response which in turn can kill pancreatic cells and thus the
condition of diabetes becomes present. I don't have any
proof of this being true... just food for thought.


In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.



  #9   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2004, 05:26 AM
Cereus-validus...
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You can't help it, Jim Bob.

You're just a bit addle brained from your severe allergic reaction to
tryptophane from eating all that turkey on Thursday. If you're not careful,
you might become diabetic as a result also. Maybe you are allergic to
stuffing too?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!



"Jim Carlock" wrote in message
. ..
"Warren" wrote:
Gosh. Aren't we all having fun with faulty logic today.


LOL My logic is not faulty. Sometimes faulty, but I don't
think it is this time. Not yet. You'll have to work alot
harder to convince me I'm wrong. eg

Type I diabetes is caused by a lack of beta cells in the
pancreace resulting in no insulin being created.


Now, what causes the lack of cells? It's an autoimmunal
response that is TRIGGERED. Triggered by what? No
one has ever identified what triggers it. The cells are
attacked and killed and thus without the cells one cannot
and does not produce insulin. Once the cells are identified
as being a contamination to the body the body automatically
sends out the killer cells to kill the pancreatic cells. It IS
an autoimmunal defense. Again I emphasize it is triggered.
No one knows what triggers it. I suggested an allergy
could, that's all. But I think more than likely it results from
an infection of some sort where the cells resemble the
pancreatic insulin producing cells.

Type I diabetes is also known as childhood onset diabetes.
It's unusual for it to occur after childhood, and certainly not
from an alergic reaction to something.


That's almost correct. Type I diabetes can occur at any time
in life. Once your body's defense mechanism kicks in and
starts killing your pancreatic insulin producing cells, you
are then considered a juvenile diabetic. Again, it is triggered
by something, and I'll mention that if your body is put into
a weakened state (ie, allergic reaction)...

Any reaction great enough to kill existing beta cells in the
pancrease is likely to result in death first.


That is UNTRUE 100%. That is a fallacy there. Do not
think of it as the allergy killing the cells. Think of it as an
autoimmune response to a condition, and a cell that the
body identifies as foreign has entered the body. It's not
the allergic reaction, it's the fact that the allergy put the
body into an enweakened state. And with the body being
weaker and and foreign invasions occuring... the body's
defenses going into high gear... and a cell that appears
much like the pancreatic insulin producing cell... BINGO.

Type II diabetes occurs when the body's cells cannot
efficiently use the insulin produced by the pancrease.
Type II diabetes is also known as adult onset diabetes.


I won't argue with that. I'll just add my two cents. :-)
Ask yourself, "Why isn't the body producing as much insulin?"

As you get older, the body stops working the way it used
to in the past. This might mean that you need to eat better,
excercise more to keep up with the way you used to be. It
might mean you need more vitamins. The body might be
lacking in something and usually in these cases it's easy to fix
what is missing.

It also would not occur because of an alergic reaction to
something.


What happens during an allergic reaction? The body gets
weaker. The body becomes more susceptible to disease
and infection. Now, we should qualify this a little more.
We should state that it happens moreso in the worst cases.

Obesity is the most popular contributing factor in type II
diabetes simply because more cells ineffectively using
insulin eventually outpaces the pancrease's ability to
produce insulin fast enough. No death of pancreatic cells
is involved.


The last stuff there doesn't apply to the conversation at
hand. I don't know much about Type II diabetes, other
than it occurs in older folks, have problems with missing
vitamins/minerals and/or have something else can be
identified more specifically.

Well, if it's better to be safe than sorry, you'd better climb
back into that bubble. You're constantly coming in contact
with things you could suffer an allergic reaction to.


That's the story about the "Boy in the Bubble". :-)

If I knew I was allergic to them flowers, I would definitely stay
away from them and I firmly stand behind, "It's better to be
safe than sorry." If I knew bumble bees could kill me, I'd
stay way from those as well. Better to be safe than sorry. I
don't have any fear of wasps or bees, but I do fear ALL
spiders. I stay away from ALL spiders.

--
Jim Carlock
Post replies to newsgroup.

Jim Carlock wrote:
"Cereus-validus..." wrote:
Phytotoxicity and sensitivity to plant toxins has nothing to do
with diabetes.

In logic, what you are alluding to is called "false cause" also
know as coincidence.


I'll go along with that. However it could be that there was
an allergic reaction to the poinsettas that caused the diabetes.

My logic for that goes like this. Diabetes is usually considered
an autoimmunal disease where the pancreatic cells that produce
insulin are attacked and killed. And if there is an allergy to a
specific substance, that in turn can produce an autoimmunal
response which in turn can kill pancreatic cells and thus the
condition of diabetes becomes present. I don't have any
proof of this being true... just food for thought.


In fact, with all the talk about poinsettas being poisonous,
anyone with an allergy to a poinsetta could possibly die from
contact. I won't state that that is 100% true, because I never
witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.





  #10   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2004, 01:05 AM
Salty Thumb
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jim Carlock" wrote in
:

witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.


This response has been rated PG13 Parental Guidance suggested.
..
..
..

I don't know why so many people equate being better safe than sorry with
living in a bubble. It's as simple as knowing not to fondle your
poinsettias, not letting your kids eat them and not asking your delicate
hot young non-lebanese slave girl who just rubbed all up & down her hot
naked body with frankincense and myrrh to water them.

In the unlikely event somebody does get a rash then you don't have to
stand around with a dumb look thinking "well it can't be the poinsettia,
somebody said they're non-toxic ..." while the victim screams in agony as
little blisters on their skin repeatedly break oozing pus and dark blood
drips like boiling summer rain from their eyelids "... I wonder if I
should call poison control or Wilfred Brimley".

At any rate, diabetes (at least type-2) can cause all sorts of
neuropathies that would impair a person's normal response to avoid
potentially allegeric substances. So instead of "an allergic reaction to
the poinsettas that caused the diabetes" it's more likely that "because
of the diabetes, the victim was unable to sense the allergic substance".




  #11   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2004, 01:14 AM
paghat
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article Dv9qd.1988$wr6.452@trnddc04, Salty Thumb
wrote:

"Jim Carlock" wrote in
:

witnessed it, but it's definitely better to be safe than sorry.


This response has been rated PG13 Parental Guidance suggested.
.
.
.

I don't know why so many people equate being better safe than sorry with
living in a bubble. It's as simple as knowing not to fondle your
poinsettias, not letting your kids eat them and not asking your delicate
hot young non-lebanese slave girl who just rubbed all up & down her hot
naked body with frankincense and myrrh to water them.

In the unlikely event somebody does get a rash then you don't have to
stand around with a dumb look thinking "well it can't be the poinsettia,
somebody said they're non-toxic ..." while the victim screams in agony as
little blisters on their skin repeatedly break oozing pus and dark blood
drips like boiling summer rain from their eyelids "... I wonder if I
should call poison control or Wilfred Brimley".

At any rate, diabetes (at least type-2) can cause all sorts of
neuropathies that would impair a person's normal response to avoid
potentially allegeric substances. So instead of "an allergic reaction to
the poinsettas that caused the diabetes" it's more likely that "because
of the diabetes, the victim was unable to sense the allergic substance".


The reason it is assinine to be safer than sorry when dealing with a
non-toxic substance (such as, say, poinsettias) on the off-chance that
someone MIGHT have an unpredictable allergic reaction -- is because that's
true of EVERYthing. The list I gave before, that includes carrots &
celery, are far more likely to cause contact dermititis than is
poinsettia. One could never go out doors or even into the kitchen if this
level of safe-not-sorry was applied.

Anyone with an allergy to poinsettias would also have an allergy to pencil
erasers. They would not have gotten this far in life not knowing they were
allergic to latex. And their allergy would have nothing whatsoever to do
with normal healthy reactions (rather non-reactions) to latex.

RATIONAL safe-not-sorry is to not take chances until the facts are known.
If you don't know for sure that it's a common blueberry, don't eat it; if
you do know it's a common blueberry, & you still won't eat it because
you'd rather be safe than sorry, then that judgement would define that
idiot as a loon.

When the facts are known & someone still decides it's too dangerous, then
that person is a nutcake & a loon. Period.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com
  #12   Report Post  
Old 28-11-2004, 01:45 AM
Salty Thumb
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(paghat) wrote in
news
The reason it is assinine to be safer than sorry when dealing with a
non-toxic substance (such as, say, poinsettias) on the off-chance that
someone MIGHT have an unpredictable allergic reaction -- is because
that's true of EVERYthing. The list I gave before, that includes
carrots & celery, are far more likely to cause contact dermititis than
is poinsettia. One could never go out doors or even into the kitchen
if this level of safe-not-sorry was applied.

Anyone with an allergy to poinsettias would also have an allergy to
pencil erasers. They would not have gotten this far in life not
knowing they were allergic to latex. And their allergy would have
nothing whatsoever to do with normal healthy reactions (rather
non-reactions) to latex.

RATIONAL safe-not-sorry is to not take chances until the facts are
known. If you don't know for sure that it's a common blueberry, don't
eat it; if you do know it's a common blueberry, & you still won't eat
it because you'd rather be safe than sorry, then that judgement would
define that idiot as a loon.

When the facts are known & someone still decides it's too dangerous,
then that person is a nutcake & a loon. Period.

-paghat the ratgirl


What it comes down to is you are claiming poinsettias are non-toxic even
though you admit some may have an allergic reaction, and that those with
allergic reactions will have at some prior time have experienced the
reaction and instinctively know latex based items should be avoided.

Obviously if your allergy is extreme then yes you would probably be dead
already. But if by fate or happy circumstance you've never been exposed
to a blueberry and yet were allergic, sensing something amiss and still
persisted in eating it, then you may not be a loon but you may end up in
the hospital with your stomach pumped or in the ground pushing up
daisies.

While I am not advocating wholesale avoidance of anything remotely
dangerous, I am saying that people should be aware of possiblilities and
not dismiss everything with a blanket statement.

Now while edible items have a different standard than non-edible ones,
you have said that poinsettias are non-toxic yet you would not rub one
all over your naked body. Now, being non-toxic it should be perfectly
safe, why not? Would you rather be safe, and loony, than sorry?

People have their quirks and sometimes there may be an underlying reason,
and even if there is not, there's no reason for condescension.

  #13   Report Post  
Old 25-12-2004, 03:11 PM
Bill Oliver
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
paghat wrote:

Anyone with an allergy to poinsettias would also have an allergy to pencil
erasers. They would not have gotten this far in life not knowing they were
allergic to latex. And their allergy would have nothing whatsoever to do
with normal healthy reactions (rather non-reactions) to latex.


Pencil erasers and poinsettia sap are very different, and it is not
necessarily a latex allergy that causes the contact dermatitis (The
reverse is not true -- there are lots of people allergic to latex,
and few allergic to poinsettia sap). In fact, I know of no study
that has determined what compound is involved -- severe contact
dermatitis is so rare that it's a matter of case reports.

However, broad studies of poinsettia toxicity have been done,
and you are absolutely correct that the rate of bad reactions
verges on the idiosyncratic. For instance, see:

Krenzelok EP, Jacobsen TD, Aronis JM Poinsettia exposures have good
outcomes...just as we thought. Am J Emerg Med. 1996 Nov;14(7):671-4,

From the MEDLINE abstract:

The poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) is a much-maligned plant
which is thought by the public and some health professionals to be
extremely toxic. Despite pronouncements by public health officials
to the contrary, the poinsettia continues to be recognized as a
poisonous plant. To determine if there was any validity to the
toxicity claims, 849,575 plant exposures reported to the American
Association of Poison Control Centers were electronically analyzed.
Poinsettia exposures accounted for 22,793 cases and formed the
subset that was analyzed to critically evaluate the morbidity and
mortality associated with poinsettia exposures. There were no
fatalities among all poinsettia exposures and 98.9% were accidental
in nature, with 93.3% involving children. The majority of exposed
patients (96.1%) were not treated in a health care facility and
92.4% did not develop any toxicity related to their exposure to the
poinsettia. Most patients do not require any type of therapy and
can be treated without referral to a health care facility.


It's a little like the old joke

"Doc, it hurts when I do this"
"Then stop doing it."

There is no medical reason to be afraid of poinsettias. If one is given
to contact dermatitis something, one will find out quickly and avoid it.

My wife is severely allergic to poison ivy; I am not senstive at all -- yet.
Guess who gets sent out every year to clear the paths in the woods around
our place. If and when I become sensitive to poison ivy/oak, I will become
paranoid about avoiding it. Until then, I won't pay much attention.


billo
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non toxic wood sealer to use near pond Harriett Wright Ponds 6 23-09-2005 12:07 AM
Non toxic wood sealer to use near pond jrock64 Ponds 7 17-08-2004 03:24 AM
Non-toxic insect repellants. Schmuck Edible Gardening 4 10-10-2003 02:42 PM
Non-toxic weed control Tony Lawns 11 30-05-2003 12:32 PM
Non-toxic preservative for wood in raised beds pgh Gardening 6 25-04-2003 05:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017