Talk:Toxicity

The note below the table indicates "expected values" for undefined values. Its confusing, doesn't make sense, and has no citation. I'd remove it but I wondered if anyone else had an opinion on this.

There are toxins, mutagens, tetragens... classified according to their impact on cells. Colloquially, the latter are considered toxic, so they should be linked here too.

The unsigned comment above was the original message on this page, placed by 142.177.77.65 on 18 January 2003

IN article "Toxicity" - refered in paragraph starting: Toxicity can be measured by the effects on the target (organism, organ, or tissue). a concept is refered to. The saftey factor is brought up in my Toxicology course in college when the NOEL concept is explained. NOEL being the No Observable Effects Limit, is then divided by a safety factor (i.e 100).

Is this to put representation into numerical form to reflect the results of the toxicity study of a particular substance? So would the Safety Factor really be a percentage type figure, or is it more focused on why the result was returned. i.e - factors such as, how the organism metabolised the substance, how the dose was inflicted upon the organism, how reliable the substance is at reacting in an organism, etc. If the latter is the case, this would mean that no 'universal saftey factor' would exist for a substance because all organisms are different from eachother both in families and not in families.

Kthx, please respond with an answer that states: Saftey Factor is used when.... Saftey Factor is applied to return what exactly when relating to a NOEL graph.

A Safety Factor is an arbitrary number applied as a divisor "just in case" - after all available quantitative adjustments and calculations as a way to be more comfortable that a suggested acceptable level would not be likely to produce a toxic effect in humans. There used to be a broad agreement in the toxicology community as to what safety factor should be applied. The agreement seems to have broken down over the last couple of decades, with more variation in what is proposed based on who is speaking and what the toxic effect is being examined. Pzavon 02:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

See added text in article. OccDoc 23:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if this is the proper place to ask this, but I'm looking for a page about the various toxicities of plants to pets. If there is no such page, or no such information on wikipedia, what would we need to do to get such a page started? I don't know enough about it to do it myself, but I think it's something that's pretty important. Question posted 2 July 2007 by User:Ishmayl

Water can kill (e.g. 20 literes) but not by toxic effect. It can kill by physical effect. Otherwise the notion of toxicity loses it's sense because in this way every substance in the Universe will be a toxine. And also a brick fallen down on a head and killing by strike will be also a toxine.

Toxine effects in different ways: 1. Direct toxic influence 2. Influence for separate organs 3. Influence for separate cells

Also toxin dose is relatively small in comparison to the body weigth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.100.169 (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

See The dose makes the poison, and Water intoxication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree fully by this. The definition of toxicity needs to be redone. For something to be regarded as "toxic", I would say the chemical or substance or mixture, must have its own active mechanism for harming the organism, either by blocking oxygen supply (not replacing) or blocking neural signals from reaching or passing certain points, or directly harmful effects like dissolving of tissue (acids). Examle of toxic substances: For example, carbon monoxide, is a toxic substance, since it binds to the red blood cells 250 times harder than oxygen, and thus block the red blood cells from transporting oxygen. Same with cyanide, which blocks the ability for an cell to consume the oxygen and produce ATP energy. Example of nontoxic substances: Helium is nontoxic, even if it replaces oxygen and can kill by asphyxiation. Oxygen and water is nontoxic, because they are harmful in too large quanities just because the cells have no ability to regulate the intake of the substance, and will happily consume more than they are able to handle by osmos, and the cell membrane will rupture. Oxygen and water do not have their own harmful effects.

Sebastiannielsen (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Surely there should be a section on Radioactive Toxicity.

"Toxicity is the degree to which a substance can damage an organism." Plutonium is a substance and its radioactivity can damage organisms. At the very least there should be a pointer to whatever article is appropriate, but there is not an immediately obvious article that I could find, except the empty hold in this one. Hu (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What is a non-living organism? --David Munch (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

(ditto) Given a non-living organism (i.e. a dead organism), how can we judge degree of toxicity? Certainly LD50 is not useful. A non-living organism cannot be 'harmed' and there is little distinction between being dead and really dead. Perhaps there is a protocol to identify toxicity based on test effects on preserved tissue specimens. I would recommend removing this text unless there is a technical reference document that spells out what is meant by toxicity in regards to 'non-living organisms'. kradak (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I agree 101.171.42.157 (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toxicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211134419/http://toxseek.nlm.nih.gov/ to http://toxseek.nlm.nih.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can substances either abrasive in their own right (silica) or capable of breaking down into abrasive substances through metabolization be considered toxic? They can be extremely harmful.Pbrower2a (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Non-toxic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 29#Non-toxic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ]  [ CONT ]} 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Widespread lack of referencing and incomplete thoughts are a problem with this article. The "Classifications" section has a heavily US-centric tone, reading like a Safety data sheet about no chemical in particular--while simultaneously all of the worst ones. Considering the scope in the more than 2,000 articles that link here, [1] "Toxicity" should be embraced as something that enriches the experience of readers from every background, not just the narrow sector that may work with hazardous waste. Imagine this article renewed as a place for people to learn something new about the nuances of life as we have shaped it here on Earth, in spite of all the toxicities.

I plan on beginning the process of rewriting this article in its entirety soon. Specifically, I believe this article could be improved by:

• Providing a historical overview on how changing cultural norms and industrialization have impacted our impressions on toxicity, with an emphasis on global perspectives.
• Providing a more global perspective on toxicity regulations in countries beyond the US
• Giving better context to the field of medicine by:
  • A more nuanced discussion of the individual response to toxicity, especially toward people that are immunocompromised.
  • Broad overview on LD50 and how that relates to toxicology studies on animals.
• Expanding the discussion of environmental toxicity by
  • Introducing the concept of anthropogenic vs. "natural" causes (i.e. harmful algal blooms, melting of permafrost releasing toxic levels of iron)
  • Comments on varying levels of environmental toxicity exposure in the developed vs. developing world
  • Including comments on toxicities which effect both humans and ecological systems, especially in response to changing climates
  • The intentional application of toxicity by humans toward non-humans via herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, algaecide, antibiotics, etc.
• Throughout: more linking to currently relevant instances across the world of toxicity outbreaks, pandemics, industrial accidents, etc.

I could definitely use some help in the area of medicinal research/applications, as the environmental side is more my strong suit. Of course, I enthusiastically encourage everyone to please contribute in any way possible. Looking forward to the fruitful discussions to come. AdmiresCycles (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adding on, I want to apologize in advance if/when I stumble through this process. To be sure, I am not suggesting a complete deletion this article and starting blank. Also, I definitely want to apologize for being dismissive of the valuable effort made by the many editors here before me. I realize there is a vetted process for big changes like this to happen involving consensus. I plan to incrementally add to the article, expanding in the areas noted above, participating in discussions along the way. My research has me beginning in the historical contexts of toxicity, so you might expect to see additions in a 'History' section in the coming days. AdmiresCycles (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply