Jump to content

Talk:Nicotine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 45.46.179.116 (talk) at 23:26, 31 January 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Ecig sanctions

Template:Vital article

Magnetic Susceptibilty

TerpeneOtto (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I'm publishing magnetic susceptibilities in the physical properties portion of organic molecules and inorganic compounds and Im having a hard time getting magnetic susceptibility into the drug boxes. Could someone publish this into the drug box and either add a slot for magnetic susceptibility or post here and update us on how to post magnetic susceptiblity into the drug boxes. | MagSus = -113.328·10−6 cm3/mol . This is the coded format for the physical properties box.[reply]

@TerpeneOtto: I don't think {{Drugbox}} currently supports that parameter. You could post on the talk page of that template. Sizeofint (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trace quantities in plants

I just made an edit [1] to clarify that the occurrence in plants is very low. I might have done this anyway if I'd thought about it, but this was in response to an article [2] about an Indonesian group which argues [3] that "because nicotine is in vegetables you eat every day, you can't avoid it". I should emphasize that the text we had before was made by a good user giving good facts, and despite my initial fear I don't think the Komunitas Kretek editorial is based on our text because they use a different older reference [4] which gives a far higher figure for nicotine content of foods. Even so, 100 ng/g in an eggplant means that you get 100 ug from a kilo, while there is 120 times that amount in the average cigarette.

Still, when I look at a holocaust in the making, I don't want a single fingerprint of mine on it, so I should ask whether there is more we can do to make it clear how preposterous the "present in all foods" argument really is. I didn't put the comparison I gave above in the article because I thought I'd run into "original synthesis" complaints, but I want to see if there might be room for something like that (or something else) here. Wnt (talk) 19:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the PDF file state it is in "trace quantities"? Please see WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Update: apparently I'm already taking flack with a "not in citation given" tag. I don't think working the math that ug/kg = ppb by weight is going too far - we do unit conversions all the time. @QuackGuru: - I don't get what you mean about WP:V here. Wnt (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of the PDF file. Please provide verification according to what the source stated. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Trace quantities" is a subjective term, so I've tried replacing it with "Millions-fold lower quantities". Bear in mind that the older reference cited above says that three hours of breathing second-hand smoke produces a nicotine level in the blood comparable to the amount ingested if eggplant contained 100 ng/kg rather than the 2-7 ng/kg we cite; I would have thought that "trace" adequately described a quantity so easily acquired. But now it's just simple math. Wnt (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Trace quantities" is a subjective term, but it is still original research. It already says "(parts per billion by weight)". "Millions-fold lower quantities" is unnecessary and similar to "(parts per billion by weight)" and the source does not state it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More original research. The part "as well as in tea". is WP:OR or ambiguous. The wording can be a bit more accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now I gave up the tea part - honestly the problem is I can't access the full text of that article presently and so I don't know what specifics to say. It's not really lede material anyway - and the other paper didn't find any in black tea at all, and the one we cite says it's variable. For all I know there are smokers in the tea field. I also have, reluctantly, given up the "billions" explanation in favor of wikilinking the units. I hope this text is mutually tolerable at this point. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Millions-fold lower quantities" is confusing. Please find a source to verify the claim or read the PDF file. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have done much to respond to your criticisms, but we need to have some tip-off to the reader that the amount of nicotine in an eggplant is not comparable to the amount in a cigarette. There are all too many people who don't understand the metric system and don't know what a "ug/kg" is. I don't see why my phrase would be confusing, but certainly leaving it out would be (and was) more so. I've done a rewording of the sentence that might read better; I have no idea if that addresses your concerns. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the source state "Less than one millionth of that concentration..."? Even if it was shortened to "2–7 µg/kg is found in edible Solanaceae such as eggplants and tomatoes." it would be original research and misleading. The source does not assert it is always that consistently accurate. Without reading the PDF file an editor cannot come to their own conclusion in this particular case. QuackGuru (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copied diff

@QuackGuru: Can you link me to the diff from this article where content was copied/moved from Safety of electronic cigarettes into this article? I'd like to add the diff link to the {{Copied}} template on this page since the revision should normally be included in that template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Nicotine addiction

The article Nicotine addiction currently redirects to Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders. There is an article about Nicotine dependence which is also referred to in that section of this article. I believe Nicotine addiction is best redirected to Nicotine dependence instead of this article. Some editors believe nicotine dependence and addiction are two different concepts. This is probably true. However, the section of this article does actually mostly talk about dependence and only refers addiction in the shorter second part of the section. However, the article Nicotine addiction actually discusses the difference between the two concepts in some more detail. Very strictly speaking, it would be wrong to redirect Nicotine addiction to either this article or Nicotine dependence. However, I would argue most people wanting to find out more about either dependence or addiction will inevitably follow from Nicotine to the linked article about Nicotine dependence, so taking them first to this article actually has little value add. I therefore request to change the redirect. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicotine addiction is not the same thing as nicotine dependence. More information about nicotine addiction can be added to Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders. QuackGuru (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Dependence and addiction are more closely related and should be discussed in the same article in detail (which can be called Nicotine dependence or Nicotine addiction - I don't really have a preference). My main point is, if there is a lengthy article, that one should be fleshed out with all the details and facets. This article may then very well give a summary overview of the facets (which it actually already sort of does) and leave the details to the second article. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an article called Nicotine addiction and dependence, but Nicotine#Reinforcement disorders touches on both addiction and dependence. Drug addiction is obviously different than drug dependence. Therefore, we don't redirect Nicotine addiction to Nicotine dependence. The word addiction is not typically interchangeable with dependence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
well, in relation to nicotine, even the WHO and APA use addiction and dependence interchangeably, see top left of page 142. Again, while there is no substantively different article about addiction, dependence is the closest fit.pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 17:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is drug dependence (i.e. negative reinforcement) and then there is substance dependence (diagnostic criteria which encompasses addiction and dependence). Nicotine dependence could discuss either (so long as it is a diagnosable condition), but we need to be clear which. Sizeofint (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting "DRUG_NAME addiction" to the addiction section of an associated drug article isn't unusual; e.g., Amphetamine addiction is currently a redirect to Amphetamine#Addiction. Nicotine addiction currently uses the same format for that redirect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the only reason that nicotine dependence exists as an independent article is that it's a diagnosis in the ICD. Otherwise, all of the "DRUG_NAME dependence" articles probably would've been merged into their parent articles a while ago. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snus Cancer Risk

The long-term use of nicotine in the form of snus incurs a slight risk of cardiovascular disease compared to tobacco smoking and is not associated with cancer.

A quick search reveals no credible information to support this claim, and quite a bit to refute it. The validity of the attached citation is already in question. Should it be removed? 45.46.179.116 (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicotine&oldid=823387254"