Talk:Toxicity

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is the derivation relating to the idea of the Saftey Factor? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Radioactive Toxicity 

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

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Abrasive substances 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Non-toxic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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,  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rewriting this article