Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Non toxic wood sealer to use near pond | Ponds | |||
Non toxic wood sealer to use near pond | Ponds | |||
Non-toxic insect repellants. | Edible Gardening | |||
Non-toxic weed control | Lawns | |||
Non-toxic preservative for wood in raised beds | Gardening |