The Plant Man column
for publication week of 11/28/04 - 12/04/04
(667 words)
###

The Plant Man
by Steve Jones
www.landsteward.org

Poinsettias are non-toxic, despite the persistent myth!

For me, Thanksgiving always seems to be the point where fall ends and winter
begins. The official calendar may disagree with me, but with Thanksgiving
behind us and Christmas less than a month away, I'm already thinking about
next spring.

For landscapers and gardeners, its not visions of sugar plums dancing in our
heads. Rather, it's visions of fresh, green growth and emerging new buds
that we know are just around the corner. Well, almost...

First we must get through the rest of the Holidays with the minimum of
stress! In my next column, I will suggest a few stocking stuffers
(wheelbarrow stuffers?) for the gardeners on your list, or as
"I-deserve-it" treats for yourself.

But today, let's debunk a myth that seems to surface every year at about
this time.

The myth: Poinsettias are toxic.

The reality: They're not.

The origin of this misinformation apparently dates back to 1919 when the
death of an army officer's two-year-old child was wrongly attributed to the
ingestion of Poinsettia leaves. Since then, according to web sites such as
www.truthorfiction.com the myth of the poisonous Poinsettia has continued to
spread.

A 50 lb child would have to eat 1.25 lbs of Poinsettia bracts (about 500 to
600 leaves) to exceed the experimental doses reported by the POISINDEX
Information Service. Poisindex is the reference used by most poison control
centers. You can read the full story at a web site that tracks urban legends
he http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/poinsettia.asp and there is a
direct link from this column archived under "The Plant Man" heading at my
web site, www.landsteward.org if you'd care to read it.

Furthermore, the snopes web site reports that the American Medical
Association's "Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants" lists nothing
more than occasional vomiting as a side effect of ingesting otherwise
harmless poinsettia leaves.

"It's a testament to the persistence of myths," says Paul Bachman, marketing
chairman of the Society of American Florists and quoted at
www.twilightbridge.com "Poinsettias simply are not toxic. That was proven 23
years ago and we want to set the record straight."

Researchers at Ohio State University have measured the effects of ingesting
unusually high doses of all parts of the plant, including the leaves, stem
and sap, and found the plants to be non-toxic.

But if you believe that Poinsettias are poisonous, you're not alone. In a
poll mentioned at the twilightbridge web site, only 16% of adults knew that
the plants are non-toxic. (50% of respondents believed Poinsettias are
poisonous and 34% said they didn't know.)

But I have to say, I definitely do NOT suggest that any part of a Poinsettia
should be eaten, particularly by small children, who could suffer some
discomfort and stomach upset even though they will not be poisoned.

Animals – particularly cats – should be kept away from Poinsettias because
they tend to vomit after eating ANY houseplant... even those "cat oats" that
are grown specifically for them to chomp on.

So... for your peace of mind (and to avoid cleaning up kitty puke from the
rug) it's a good idea to display your Holiday Poinsettias away from the kids
and the cats, even if you now know that no permanent damage is likely to
occur.

What about those other traditional Holiday decorations, holly and ivy?

According to various medical resources, most types of ivy would cause a
burning sensation in the throat when ingested. And eating the leaves or
berries of most varieties of holly would cause vomiting, nausea and
diarrhea. Again, all excellent reasons to keep your festive greenery away
from little hands and paws, but not particularly life-threatening!

Remember, I'm always pleased to receive your comments or questions and I try
to respond personally via e-mail within a couple of days.

The Plant Man is here to help. Send your questions about trees, shrubs and
landscaping to and for resources and additional
information, or to subscribe to Steve's free e-mailed newsletter, visit
www.landsteward.org

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!!!

Steve Jones The Plant Man is a shill for the plant industry. He's just
playing with words. He should put his money where his mouth is and eat
Poinsettias himself and find out first-hand just how toxic they really are.


"Earl" wrote in message
om...
The Plant Man column
for publication week of 11/28/04 - 12/04/04
(667 words)
###

The Plant Man
by Steve Jones
www.landsteward.org

Poinsettias are non-toxic, despite the persistent myth!

For me, Thanksgiving always seems to be the point where fall ends and
winter
begins. The official calendar may disagree with me, but with Thanksgiving
behind us and Christmas less than a month away, I'm already thinking about
next spring.

For landscapers and gardeners, its not visions of sugar plums dancing in
our
heads. Rather, it's visions of fresh, green growth and emerging new buds
that we know are just around the corner. Well, almost...

First we must get through the rest of the Holidays with the minimum of
stress! In my next column, I will suggest a few stocking stuffers
(wheelbarrow stuffers?) for the gardeners on your list, or as
"I-deserve-it" treats for yourself.

But today, let's debunk a myth that seems to surface every year at about
this time.

The myth: Poinsettias are toxic.

The reality: They're not.

The origin of this misinformation apparently dates back to 1919 when the
death of an army officer's two-year-old child was wrongly attributed to
the
ingestion of Poinsettia leaves. Since then, according to web sites such
as
www.truthorfiction.com the myth of the poisonous Poinsettia has continued
to
spread.

A 50 lb child would have to eat 1.25 lbs of Poinsettia bracts (about 500
to
600 leaves) to exceed the experimental doses reported by the POISINDEX
Information Service. Poisindex is the reference used by most poison
control
centers. You can read the full story at a web site that tracks urban
legends
he http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/poinsettia.asp and there is
a
direct link from this column archived under "The Plant Man" heading at my
web site, www.landsteward.org if you'd care to read it.

Furthermore, the snopes web site reports that the American Medical
Association's "Handbook of Poisonous and Injurious Plants" lists nothing
more than occasional vomiting as a side effect of ingesting otherwise
harmless poinsettia leaves.

"It's a testament to the persistence of myths," says Paul Bachman,
marketing
chairman of the Society of American Florists and quoted at
www.twilightbridge.com "Poinsettias simply are not toxic. That was proven
23
years ago and we want to set the record straight."

Researchers at Ohio State University have measured the effects of
ingesting
unusually high doses of all parts of the plant, including the leaves, stem
and sap, and found the plants to be non-toxic.

But if you believe that Poinsettias are poisonous, you're not alone. In a
poll mentioned at the twilightbridge web site, only 16% of adults knew
that
the plants are non-toxic. (50% of respondents believed Poinsettias are
poisonous and 34% said they didn't know.)

But I have to say, I definitely do NOT suggest that any part of a
Poinsettia
should be eaten, particularly by small children, who could suffer some
discomfort and stomach upset even though they will not be poisoned.

Animals - particularly cats - should be kept away from Poinsettias because
they tend to vomit after eating ANY houseplant... even those "cat oats"
that
are grown specifically for them to chomp on.

So... for your peace of mind (and to avoid cleaning up kitty puke from the
rug) it's a good idea to display your Holiday Poinsettias away from the
kids
and the cats, even if you now know that no permanent damage is likely to
occur.

What about those other traditional Holiday decorations, holly and ivy?

According to various medical resources, most types of ivy would cause a
burning sensation in the throat when ingested. And eating the leaves or
berries of most varieties of holly would cause vomiting, nausea and
diarrhea. Again, all excellent reasons to keep your festive greenery away
from little hands and paws, but not particularly life-threatening!

Remember, I'm always pleased to receive your comments or questions and I
try
to respond personally via e-mail within a couple of days.

The Plant Man is here to help. Send your questions about trees, shrubs and
landscaping to and for resources and additional
information, or to subscribe to Steve's free e-mailed newsletter, visit
www.landsteward.org

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.

Steve Jones The Plant Man is a shill for the plant industry. He's just
playing with words. He should put his money where his mouth is and eat
Poinsettias himself and find out first-hand just how toxic they really are.

That may be true of Steve Jones, but here's a repost of my bit re
poinsettias, as it is indeed getting to be that time of year again:

REPOST:

Poinsettas are harmless to pets & people.

To quote Keith L. Smith of the Ohio State University Agricultural Extension:
"Various reports over the years have led the general public to believe
poinsettias are toxic to humans; however, this has not been authenticated.
Research conducted at The Ohio State University & other institutions has
proved the old wives' tale that poinsettias are poisonous to be false."

Yet it is a deeply ingrained myth that poinsettias are toxic. It is so
ingrained that it gets tossed onto dozens of "poisonous plants lists" with
no one bothering to check to find out if there is actually any toxic
alkaloid in this plant, & even veterinarians will state with straight
faces that poinsettias will kill cats or dogs, though no veterinarian on
earth has ever seen this happen because it can't happen. The mature plant
exudes a white milk similar to that of toxic euphorbias, which would tend
to increase the belief in this myth once it got started, but there is not
one case on record of poinsettias injuring pets, & people, & the caustic
level is about the same as that of a dandylion.

The currently prevailing theory is that the myth began in Hawaii in 1919,
when a two year old child was found dead under a full
grown poinsettia tree, with a poinsettia leaf in her hand. This is the
ONLY death-by-poinsettia ever reported, & it was a 100% false report. A
Cornell University professor in 1972 attempted long after the case to
track down the specifics, knowing as he did that poinsettias are nontoxic.
The last living witness to the case said there had never been poinsettias
involved in the only known case of poinsettia poisoning; that he didn't
know how the story got started since poinsettias were not involved [see
details in THE MEXICAN PET].

In close to a century since, one additional case of moderate illness
has been reported, but it was not medically tested at the time, & could've
been anything, but the parent presenting a child with stomach upset had
seen the child eat a poinsettia leaf. This was the much-cited case was in
Rochester, NY, in 1965, but the child did not need to be treated for
anything whatsoever.

The urban folktale itself causes headaches for florists & poinsettia
ranchers, as nothing squelches the belief. The Paul Ecke Poinsettia Ranch
strives every winter to undue this unkillable myth, to the point that
market manager Thom David grabs a few bracts & eats them right in front of
anyone who persists in the belief, & that always settles the matter, so
perhaps he should do this on Fear Factor, as nothing less would reach
enough people to have any chance of turning the widespread belief around.

Harrassed by superstitious activists who wanted the government to force
the poinsettia industry to put toxic warning labels on poinsettias, the
Consumer Products Safety Commission accumulated all relevant literature, &
in 1975 denied the petition, issuing instead a clean bill of health for
the complete safety of poinsettias, citing the complete lack of any
evidence to the contrary. Yet a Bruskin/Goldring Research poll of 1,000
Americans found that 50% were certain poinsettias were poisonous, 34%
didn't know, & only 16% were well informed. They found that women were
more prone to believing the myth than men; & anyone under the age of 50
was more apt to believe it than anyone aged 50 or older (so we DO get
wiser as we age!); & people in the Northeast were more prone to believing
the myth than were people in the West.

Many otherwise harmless plant alkaloids in sufficient concentration can
cause vomiting, for which reason the American Medicical Association's
poison handbook still states that poinsettias might cause stomach upset or
vomiting, though otherwise harmless. The AMA is being overcautious even at
that, since stomach upset & vomiting can be induced by a cheap meal at
Taco Time. A study by the Academic Faculty of Entomology at Ohio State
University measured effects of ingesting large amounts of the plant & were
unable to reach a toxic level. Using rat models, a diet of poinsettia
leaves had no adverse effects, a zero mortality rate, zero symptoms of
toxicity, no changes in behavior, & they were fed serially each part of
the poinsettia to find out if any part of it was even mildly toxic. So far
as the rats were concerned, the poinsettia is completely edible raw,
though for a human to eat them one would need to be awfully desparate, as
the bitter taste is extremely horrible. They established that if a 50
pound dog or child could eat the equivalent of between 500 & 600 of the
bracts, or a pound & a half of the sap, they would still not have reached
a toxic dosage. In essence they found it to be completely nontoxic.

The Ohio research has been duplicated by other institutes because of the
persistance of the belief, & the results are always the same. A study by
the Children?s Hospital in Pittsburgh & Carnegie Mellon University found
that out of 22,793 poinsettia exposures in the American Association of
Poison Control Centers database, not one case of toxicity was present. In
1996, Dr. Edward Krenzelok, director of Pittsburgh Poison Center,
analyzed data on 850,000 poinsettia exposure reports in the database of
the American Association of Poison Countrol Centers, finding not one case
of authentic poisoning. It is extremely hard for children to successfully
swallow the leaves because they taste so damned bad, but in that enormous
database were 92 cases involving children injesting substantial quantities of
poinsettias, inducing very worried parents to contact poison centers. NOT
ONE of these cases resulted in even slightly harmful effects.

My own suspicion is the myth originally transferred from Christmas
mistletoe (mildly toxic) & English holly (much more toxic), which are
properly worried about.

-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

"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

"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

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

"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

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

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

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/

"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.

"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".

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

(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.

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.