Talk:Ricin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:29, 5 November 2007

Ricin is by no means the "most toxic substance on earth". Palytoxin, which was isolated in 1971 in Hawaii from Limu make o Hane (‘deadly seaweed of Hana’) can kill at 0.15 microgram per kilogram for death by injection.

assuming the victim is 70kg that's 0.0105 milligram lethal dose.

Not to be vulgar, but does anyone know what a "CUNT agent" is? -Anon

Regarding the Austin, Texas case: Should this case really be referenced here? Whats the relevance, if it wasn't even Ricin?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.212.36 (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that Ricin is a Ribosomal Inhibitory protein (RIP). It interrupts RNA->protein translation at the ribosome. I could be wrong. -johnny johnny@martnet.com

I thought it worked by permanently damaging the ribosome by removing a nucleic acid from it. There's a page on cornell with far more than you ever wanted to know about ricin, don't know the URL offhand though. Pakaran 22:42, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The second paragraph is badly phrased but I can't redo it because I'm not sure exactly what the original author meant:
Ricin consists of two parts: Ricin A, common to many foods and toxic within the cell by stopping RNA, and thus protein synthesis; and Ricin B, unique to ricin and required for bringing Ricin A into a cell by meshing with a cell surface component. Inducing Ricin B antibodies in humans may have been done.
- would anyone like to rewrite it to make more sense? Alex.tan 03:20, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article "Ricin" states that "more than 100 million metric tons of castor beans are processed each year", but the article "Castor Bean" says "Global castor seed production is around 1 million tons per year." The latter figure is supported by other sources, e.g., Röbbelen, Downey, and Ashri, _Oil Crops of the World_ (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1989). Assuming that we're not getting some 99 million tonnes from off-planet, is the Ricin article not simply wrong?

          RJ Spector, zombiejam@comcast.net, Feb. 4, 2004

Ton and metric ton (tonne) are not the same. Nevertheless, according to Google, 100 million metric tons = 110 231 131 tons, which is only about 10% more.

Also note that "castor bean" may be meant to refer to beans used for, well, whatever someone wants castor beans for, whereas "castor seed" may refer to castor beans used as seedstock. If this is true, then combining the two would imply that a single plant produces 100 beans.

--Scott. 23:23, 2004 Feb 8 (UTC)

see http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1996/v3-340.html which estimates world production of castor oil at 460,000 tonnes, and seed production at 1.1 million tonnes. So I replaced 100 million tons by 1 million tons. pstudier 00:29, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Also there seems to be confusion between "5% of the total is rendered into a waste containing high concentrations of ricin toxin" and "The seed-pulp left over from pressing for castor oil contains on average about 5% by weight of ricin". The second statement would imply that a seed which probably weighs approximately 1 gram would have 1 gram * 5/100 = 50 milligrams of ricin, and could kill 250 people. I have read references which state that one bean could kill a child, which is far different than killing a couple hundred people. So I deleted the second statement. pstudier 00:29, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

I verified the numbers. It appears that the discrepancy is due to the different toxicity of Ricin bound in the bean, and purified Ricin. So I put the numbers back in, and used the word purified. pstudier 22:21, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

--- The author of this article seems to be more interested in war against terror than in Ricin.

I've added a reference to Ricin being mentioned in Agatha Christie, who was very knowledgeable about poison. I realise The House of Lurking Death isn't listed as one of her books on the Agatha Christie page, but it's not an error or vandalism on my part. I suspect it's one of her short stories. We have the collection of Agatha Christie, so I'll check it. I was aware of her connection to ricin through a Discovery Channel programme, and years later I saw the Francesca Annis version of The House of Lurking Death on TV.

Blaise 08:42, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

I checked. The House of Lurking Death is one the stories in the Partners in Crime collection. Blaise 23:34, 2005 May 13 (UTC) Italic text'Italic text ---

Asked in an edit summary: "Tom's of Maine has a deodorant with "zinc ricinoleate" made from castor beans, I assume it is not toxic. Is it made from the "a " chain?"

Ricinoleic acid is one of the major fatty acids in castor oil, and is chemically unrelated to ricin, which is a protein. Ricin being insoluble in non-polar solvents, there is little to no danger of ricin contamination of castor oil-containing products.

Sehrgut

I know this is freedom of information and all but what about the responsibility of giving that much information on how to extract ricin? Yes I know there are other places to look it up online but do we really want to make it that easily accessible? Just think about the possibility that any of you could wind up being victums of a ricin attack. CiXeL

Having taught weapons of mass destruction courses for emergency services personnel, I can say that ricin has problems when it comes to terrorist use. That doesn't mean it won't happen, but there are some problems. It is not that easy for someone to make weapons grade ricin at home and ricin also tends to oxidize quickly in the air. That's not to say it won't happen, but I have my doubts. Additionally, if it's available on-line elsewhere, how does having it here make it any more accessible than anywhere else? It was the same way with plans for the atomic bomb, those aren't available on-line anymore, but the local library has books with them in it. Rt66lt 19:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgi Markov Case

Could anyone refer me to an official statement (ie a court decision) concerning the Georgi Markov case? --Vladko 10:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

"The protein ricin (pronounced rye-sin) is a toxin from the castor bean (Ricinus communis). Its name comes from the seed's resemblance to the tick."

Does "ricinus" mean "tick" in Latin? I don't get it. It's the very first statement in the article and it's humorously ambiguous. Someone care to explain? (And clarify it in the article?) Grandmasterka 13:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in Castor_oil_plant as well. (I have no idea whether it's correct or not, though). Itub 14:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some searching, it appears that it is true: there is a species of tick called Ixodes ricinus! However, I think that this piece of trivia is too loosely connected with this article to deserve mention. A mention in Castor oil plant is fine IMO. Itub 16:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this Dangerous

Should we be giving instructions online on how to extract Ricin? I don't the policies on Wikipedia is on this... But The intructions here a little too detailed in my opinion. Hqduong 01:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such details are not needed for an encyclopedia article. I'd vote for deletion. Rwendland 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::This is a toughie; it is after all part of the public domain and available online elsewhere. (If we cut out the image, we obviously have to eliminate that reference too.) If someone else thinks it should go, I will bring it to Images for Deletion to be discussed. Grandmasterka 22:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I backtrack. I'd thought "Extraction process", went beyond the patent info, in describing how to create an aerosol powder, but I see now that is in the patent. I don't have an issue with para-phrasing the patent. (NB "Extraction process" should be made a subsection of "Patent" to make it clearer it merely describes the patent.) Rwendland 16:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed above. I think it should be left. It is readily available on the internet (and in books). 68.89.0.250 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree. Grandmasterka 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it should be removed. Regardless of terrorist concerns, the exact details of how to produce it is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. It's non-notable and/or outside the scope of relevancy. By comparison, if I look up Chocolate brownie or Plum pudding or some other food dish, it doesn't give a recipe for it, does it? The fact that recipies for those things are available elsewhere doesn't mean they belongs here, either. --BluePlatypus 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. Also, we must consider the ramifications in terms of publicity should some nut actually create the stuff (it wouldn't be the first time), and investigators discovered that the source of the receipe was Wikipedia. Considering that our listings find such a high priority on Google would make this article very tempting in that regard. I say we cut it. – Clockwork Soul 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly - knowing about the extraction process is very relevant and useful, if you want to learn about Ricin itself. Case in point - when we hear about ricin plots being foiled, it would be useful to learn of what materials or evidence may be present. If we don't include this information for ricin, we might as well pare down the nuclear bomb article to 'it makes big booms'. It's public information. Being scared about negative publicity from a hypothetical event is silly.--Fangz 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "big booms" hyperbole is far sillier than my concerns. After all, it is far more difficult to manufacture a nuclear weapon than it is to refine ricin. Keep it, don't keep it: I don't care enough to do more than voice my opinion. It does seem odd, though, that we won't keep a recipe for biscuits, but we'll keep one for ricin. – Clockwork Soul 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing that it's produced by extraction is useful. But the exact concentrations, pH values and so on is not relevant to understanding the process. It's not general-purpose information. Also, if you look at any page on any science experiment or industrial process or such, that level of information is not included. It's unencyclopedic. Whether it's public information or not is irrelevant. There are plenty of things that are public information which are beyond the scope of Wikipedia. --BluePlatypus 13:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this should be deleted. It's dangerous, and has nothing to do with relevant information for an encyclopedia. The argument above, that somehow knowing about the extraction process is important for knowing about Ricin itself is ludicrous--do we need to know how to produce high fructose corn syrup to understand soda? The food analogies here are very, very wise. If extracting it is, in and of itself, a crime, Wikipedia shouldn't link people to an image that shows them how to extract it. It's not something to "play" with--it's a dangerous substance. Dump it, dump it now. Kmaguir1 07:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much ricin?

"Typically 2.5–20 raw seeds can kill an adult human;"

That's a range of 17.5 seeds, which is quite a lot. Can we narrow this down?

Recent news item that might be worth adding: Nashville, TN, USA man arrested; in posession of pipe bombs, blasting caps, gun silencers, and a baby jar containing ricin. News article at http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060602/APA/606020767

166.61.234.85 15:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the formula for making ricin on this page accurate, and if so, should it be displayed here? I understand a determined sicko will figure out how to make it anyway, but should we (wiki community) make it so easy for them? Just a personal opinion, leave it up if you like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.114.137 (talk • contribs)

Methode of Preparation

I think the methode of preparation is as essential as the chemical structure, the mode of action, the signs of poisening (acute leucocytosis etc., as we know from experiments with pigs), and the cause of death. Otherwise why looking up the wikipedia? If I dont get the facts I can read the newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by kaltenbrunner (talk • contribs)

The preparation is not included per wp:not (not a manual). That still leaves enough facts to tell, though, so indeed wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honest reference or plagiarism?

Although the article is heavily cited, much of it reads as if it were cut-and-pasted. "We report the case of. . ." sounds much like medical journal language--not general encyclopedia language. I would remind that Wiki policy is not "citation covers all sins." Text that is lifted wholesale from other sources may be in violation of copyright. Several parts of this article sound like they came directly from a medical/epidemiology journal article, or a biology textbook .

Perhaps someone should take a look at the cited works and see if the text has been copied verbatim--if so, it should be deleted from here. There usually isn't a problem with restating some information, although if we wish to follow the best practices we really should not be merely reading a sentence, restating it, reading the next sentence, etc.

Roy 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Similarly, the phrase, "According to the National Library of Medicine" is bogus. The text that follows that erroneous attribution is taken verbatim from an article in the Medical Journal of Australia, found through a PubMed search at NLM. I think someone simply regurgitated three article abstracts, but can only verify that that's the case for the first paragraph. Moioci 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"We" ?

Sorry, just a clarrification, I've never seen Wikipedia say "We" before as it does in the following sentance:

"We report the case of a young adult who ingested a large number of the seeds, causing initial toxicity, but with subsequent full recovery."

Should this be changed or is this normal?

Someone copied four journal abstracts verbatim into that section. I have removed the text, but left in references to the journals. --Arcadian 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My own experience with the seeds to share:

In my country Ricin oil is very common, sold in all pharmacies, we put it on hairs to trait hair loss and you do not need a hair cream when you use it. Hair loss, peple who are not seeking more hair do not use it.

The seeds are common too,where I live we do not plant it, it grow spontanously along the high way and sometimes we see rates eating the seeds that fall on the ground during summer.I do not if they die of it or not!! when visiting my cousins many years ago, in thier area, the plan is known, common and planted in the garden, you just plant the seeds and you get a samll tree pretty fast (1 year).

I eated the seeds, (pretty much like nuts) lots of them. more then 12 any ways, my cousin let me do so, he did not have them, then his dead said it is ok, but to have too many, some people get sick when eating to much!!! I gave my mum 3 or 4. That was during the day, at night we walk up sick, I vomited a bit (not much), strengly, my mum who had much less seeds was sicker then me, I went back to bed but she kept vomiting and feelingsick for about 3 or 4 hours. The day after every thing was back to normal, we never had them again.

Abviously, as seeds they are not that toxic, but it realy depend on the person, my mum was sick after eating just 4 seeds. And on the quantity, I was slightly sick after eating more than 12!! If I did not stop (I enjoyed them) I had 500g or something I do not know what would have happened, as for my mum, I am sure, it would have been very serious for her if she had more than 12 seeds like I did, 500g she could have passed.

If you have the tree, do not eat the seeds and watch the children.

I cannot think of this as a weapon, not as seeds anways!

Take care

use of castor

castor , indeed even the leaves, are used to relieve pain caused by arthrits in nepal andnepal. the leaves are heated and used to as a poultice to treat the joints etc to releive the pain.the seed are heated with sand( not to burining) and, wrapped in a cloth and put on the joints to relieve the pain