Talk:Arsenic poisoning

message: I will get onto these if there is no objection
1. Update image to something clinical
2. Speficic clinical details of presentation of acute toxicity.  The article is currently too focused on chronic exposure and biochem.
3. Remove spurious famous references.  The possibility of poisoning should not be included, specific mortalities in various areas should be.
4. Replace country specific material with summaries.
5. Replace multiple references to diagnostic/treatment techniques with guideline summary from, say 3, countries (likely East China, AUS/UK/US and India).
6. Include any unmentioned pertinent information from: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/812953-clinical#a0217
--Millionmice (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  General ToDo 

message: Under "Notables", why is there no mention of the mass poisoning at Gustav Adolf Lutheran Church in New Sweden, Maine, in April of 2003?  It's the subject of Christine Ellen Young's book "A Bitter Brew".  Jeanie821 14:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mention probably because no one has added it yet (so feel free :)  Just be sure to reference your sources, e.g.  -- Limulus 04:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: please see Arsenic......WBardwin 02:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: Would someone mind updating the mean lethal dose? The page that it sources is not active anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.4.76 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mean Lethal Dose 

message: Who is going around talking about arsenic killing by stomach disruption? You really can't believe that. Overdoing arsenic will lead to vomiting and perhaps this is where the myth was first perpetuated. Arsenic kills by multi-system organ failure. It's absorption is gastric and excretion is renal. Which is why the test for arsenic poisoning is examination of urine.Angrynight 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't call people idiots who don't know as much as you. Try and be civil, even if you're annoyed. Thanks. --Singkong2005 16:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What idiot... 

message: not even a single line is here indicating the medicinal use of this important element.
*
*
http://scifun.chem.wisc.edu/chemweek/arsenic/arsenic.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilkhan1234 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicinal use of arsenic 

message: I merged the two articles. There were just a few talk page comments at Talk:Arsenicosis, which have been copied to this section:
*Previous deletion debate
i was under the impression that WHO documents are in the public domain, as is the case with US document publications. Sorry if I am wrong, and will rewrite the article. thanks. vogon77 20:38, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
=== arsenic poisoning ===
Is this another word for arsenic poisoning, or is it a particular type of arsenic poisoning?  If the former, this should be merged with the arsenic poisoning article.  If the latter, the article should make that more clear.
--Alynna 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, according to arsenic poisoning it's "chronic low-level arsenic poisoning".  I will update the article accordingly. --Alynna 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Talk:Arsenicosis (merged to this page) 

message: Is this another word for arsenic poisoning, or is it a particular type of arsenic poisoning?  If the former, this should be merged with the arsenic poisoning article.  If the latter, the article should make that more clear.
--Alynna 22:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, according to arsenic poisoning it's "chronic low-level arsenic poisoning".  I will update the article accordingly. --Alynna 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  arsenic poisoning 

message: The issue of Arsenic poisoning from groundwater in Bangladesh needs to be addressed properly in one place. Info already on Wikipedia includes:
* A reference in Bangladesh: Nickson, R, McArthur, J & Burgess, W, et al. (1998), "Arsenic poisoning of Bangladesh groundwater", Nature, no. 6700, pp. 338.
*A section about the problem in Arsenic. 
Relevant articles include: Arsenic, Borehole, Bangladesh - these should be linked appropriately.
:: I agree and the text already in the article should state when it happened so people can look for better resources.  It's important whether this happened before or after the WHO report. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh 

message: The article says that the WHO approved safe limit in water is 0.01 mg/L. Experts question this, and say that up to 100 ppb is safe (which by my calculation is 0.1 mg/L, 10 times the WHO level ), according to these links:
*USA: stricter arsenic norm unnecessary and harmful for the poor, say experts
*EPA arsenic rule set too low, study claims
It's claimed that a stricter guideline (in the USA) is unnecessary and harmful for the poor. (I'm not agreeing - it's just a bit of info that may be revelant.) --Singkong2005 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stricter USA arsenic norm questioned by experts 

message: How long does arsenic take to kill a person through steady poisoning, and in what amounts? The section on Charles Francis Hall makes mention of the length of time, but not the amounts required.  The article also mentions assassinations, but doesn't go into any detail.  I'm not interested in murder, but I am interested in the process.
I have a related question: more than once I've read a mystery story (from authors ranging from Dorothy Sayers to Dashiell Hammett) where the murderer desensitizes him/herself to arsenic by taking increasingly large doses, so that he can partake of the food lethal for the victim. Is that medically possible? Is there any documented case where that actually happened (or has been suspected)? 89.102.137.191 15:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long does arsenic take to kill a person? 

message: I've just removed the following text from the 'Treatment' section:
:If modest amounts of arsenic is ingested, it is suggested that 5 charcoal tablets be ingested immediately in order to help soak up the arsenic and then pass it through your system naturally. Eating food with sulphur, such as eggs and onions, can also help to neutralize arsenic. 
I don't know what the medical advice is for arsenic poisoning but in the activated carbon article it specifically states that it is bad at absorbing arsenic, which indicates to me that this advice is wrong. If it is wrong, then it could actually be dangerous to include it in the article (although it would be stupid to get medical advice from Wikipedia there are stupid people in the world). I thought it best to remove it just in case rather than waiting for references. --82.47.198.253 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: What is the method by which Arsenic poisons? What bodily/cellular processes are distrupted and how? I think there should be a section in the article for this. Ranunculoid 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How does it work?

message: Arsenic disrupts the glycolysis pathway in cells. Arsenic binds to Glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate to make 1-arseno-3-phosphoglycerate. Then, 1-arseno-3-phosphoglycerate is converted to 3-phosphoglycerate.
These reactions bypass the step in glycolysis using Phosphoglycerate Kinase (PK). Since PK is an important enzyme in glycolysis for substrate-level phosphorylation of ADP to ATP, Arsenic Poisoning thus results in a loss of 2 ATP molecules from each Glucose and thus no net ATP production in glycolysis.  
Please do not use my text above as a Wikipedia entry. I've typed it out here off the top of my head and without a source. I just thought I'd be lazy and provide it as a springboard for someone else to do the legwork. It is, however, factually accurate and available in any introductory biochemistry text and numerous journal articles.
thats quite esoteric. Arsenate which is the +5 valence state of arsenic is chemically similar to phosphate essential to cellular mechanisms thus it interferes with the ATP ADP process. The cellular response is usually to reduce the arsenic to + 3 valence state (arsenite) and extrude the chemical from the cell. Arsenite can also be taken up by the cell with water since it is soluble. One cellular defense mechanism methylates the arsenic as it reduces from As(V) which helps to decrease the toxicity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.250.27.43 (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Biochemistry of Arsenic Poisoning needs to be included

message: The use of ppm, ppb, mg/L, WHO limits, US limits, and other numbers concerning toxicity all need to be rectified and verified. The current material is not consistent and seems to have errors. Also, ppb might be a bad choice in terminology because of the "billion" ambiguity.
Snezzy 11:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Units and values

message: This section first states that the LD50 for arsenic is 15-30mg/kg and then goes on to say in the next sentence that this works out to be about 53g for a 70kg human.
:: 70 x 15mg = 1050mg = ~1g
:: 70 x 30mg = 2100mg = ~2g
Something is amiss here!
CrackDragon (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arsenic Toxicity

message: There are some lakes (US) that have a naturally lethally high concentration of Arsenic.  I don't know the names, but maybe the fact would be worth mentioning here. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arsenic lakes

message: The article reads: "The acute minimal lethal dose of arsenic in adults is estimated to be 70 to 200 mg or 1 mg/kg/day." This raises a number of questions: First, I suppose the 1 mg/kg/day figure is "mg of arsenic per kg of body weight", that should probably be stated in the article. Also the per day bit is not completely clear to me, is this the minimum amount that would not be metabolised in a day or is there something more to this figure? If it can be related to the first figures then that suggests that the per day dose would not kill you for at least 70 days. Speaking of which, the first figures "70 to 200 mg" are not stated as per kg, but if they are not then it seems to me those figurese or the 1 mg/kg/day must be wrong. -- Qha (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity 

message: Is this too much to ask that at least first paragraph would be understandable to common Joe? --89.72.209.44 (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English, please 

message: Really???  You couldn't make this harder to read or use??
00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usability of this section 

message: According to Wikipedia => Seems China set a standard limit of 150 ppb of Arsenic in rice; but there is no standard whatsoever for the level of Arsenic in rice (260 ppb/aver) bought in the United States - is this correct? - and ok? - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safer To Buy [[Rice]] From [[China]] Than The [[United States]]? 

message: The following points regarding arsenic poisoning may be incorporated into the article after proper paraphrasing and adding appropriate references:
* Aphrodisiac, found in Ashes n charred bones
* Aldrich Mee’s lines ( leuchoparonychia ) on nails
* Rain drop pigmentation of skin
* Red velvety appearance of stomach mucosa Subendocardial hg. Of
heart
* calcium sodium Edetate is antidote
a. Neuropathy (motor & sensory), optic Neuritis
b. Iron dialysed or fresh hydrated ferric oxide
c. Cholera** ( Rice water stool )
* White arsenic - Arsenious oxide
* Arsenious trioxide resembles Addison’s disease
* Black foot disease
* BAL is antidote ( c/I in café Cadmium & Ferrum poisoning )
* Marsh test
* Measels like rashes
* Alkali is contraindicated
* Reinsch test
* Retards decomposition (Carbolic acid, Organophosphorus, Strychnine( Nux Vomica, Endrin, Dhatura, Arsenic, Zinc Chloride)
* Rigor mortis lasts longer than usual*
* Sankhya or Somalkar is white arsenic
* Schele’s green (copper arsenate)
* paris green ( copper acetoarsenate ) 
* Hyperkeratosis & Hyper pigmentation of palm & soles
* deposited in Hair after 1 week
DiptanshuTalk 08:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: These idea seem attractive, especially if strong sources are cited per WP:MEDRS. --Smokefoot (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Not sure why we have "There is also a link to cardiovascular" and than in the next sentence " Arsenic is related to heart disease"
And than "Skin effects can include skin cancer in the long-term but often prior to skin cancer are different skin lesions...Other effects may include darkening of skin and thickening of skin"
Followed by "This can include skin cancer in the long-term but often prior to skin cancer are different skin lesions[10]. Common dermal effects include hyperpigmentation (darkening of skin) and hyperkeratosis (thickening of skin)."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: Committee on Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants.  Arsenic : Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants.  Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1977, 1.
Presumably this source meets MEDRS, as the National Research Council's Division of Medical Sciences would choose an authorship committee composed entirely of scholars familiar with the subject, and This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.  The work on which this publication is based was performed pursuant to Contract No. 68-02-1226 with the Environmental Protection Agency.  EPA prefers peer-reviewed scholarly work for its contracts, I would expect, and the authors review existing studies; not being familiar with the literature, I'm not clear whether to class this more as a secondary or tertiary source, but it's definitely not primary.  To me it seems a "systematic review" from :File:Research design and evidence - Capho.svg.
In the cited page of this source (the first page of the introduction), the authors describe the conclusion of Madame Bovary as "an almost clinical description of acute arsenic poisoning".  Is there an appropriate place for introducing a short reference to the eighth chapter (where the title character experiences the poisoning), basically for the purpose of suggesting that the reader consult this chapter for a non-technical description of acute poisoning?  Not suggesting that we create an "in popular culture" section!  Such sections are pretty much always worthless.  Rather, either we should introduce it to provide a more thorough description than would be appropriate for an encyclopedia article, or we should avoid introducing it because we shouldn't point readers to specific non-technical documents.  Nyttend backup (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Almost clinical description" 

message: I've just added a better image to the lead to show that this is not a "historical problem" but still very much current today. I am actually baffled that I can't find more images for this in Wikimedia Commons, given that millions of people are or were affected by it e.g. in Bangladesh, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_Bangladesh#Arsenic_contamination_of_groundwater Maybe there are other keywords that I haven't tried yet in my search? EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better images