|Toxin has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 NOTHING under Environmental Toxins???
- 2 Toxins and toxicants
- 3 Merge?
- 4 Bacterial toxins
- 5 Alt Med Rudeness
- 6 Toxin, Poison, Toxic
- 7 Phycotoxin inclusion
- 8 Verrucotoxin inclusion
- 9 Toxoids
- 10 Vira = Toxins?
- 11 WikiProject class rating
- 12 The info of PSP toxins...
- 13 The infos of ASP toxin
- 14 The infos of DSP toxins...
- 15 Red links in the See also section are based on the following...
- 16 Toxins from meat....
- 17 Food toxins....
- 18 universal warning picture
- 19 Dangerous substances symbol
- 20 Assessment comment
- 21 Alcohol
NOTHING under Environmental Toxins???
Outrageous! There are so many! Toxins have been detected in babies fresh from the womb... the mothers and most of us are polluted by the very air, water, food, and world around us. Medication alone! We should all be talking about this subject. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Toxins and toxicants
For informtion: Toxins are substances that are biological in origin, whereas chemicals that harm the body are correctly called toxicants. It appears to be a common mistake to use the word toxin to mean all harmful exogenous agents rather than correctly differenciating between the two. In some cases precision is needed: for example murcury is a toxicant, but methylmercury can be produced by plankton from mercury, a biological system and it is therefore a toxin. Talking about Environmental toxins is incorrect, when we mean products of anthropogenic activity: we should talk about Enviromental toxicants. Does this differentiation serve only to confuse?
- Most of that information should be moved elsewhere. As far as I'm concerned, a toxin is a compound produced by an organism which causes harm or injury. (some dictionaries list it as a specific product of metabolism and capable of inducing antibodies -- anyone know more about this?) There is no need for it kill quickly, efficiently or at all to qualify. Botulism is fatal in 15% of the cases and many people survive bee stings. The part about water/dietary minerals being toxic isn't relevant here. Not everything that's toxic is a toxin. I don't see toxin being more than a stub unless information from (biological) poisons is merged, along with venum, endotoxin, enterotoxin and exotoxin. --jag123 16:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed: I've edited it accordingly to focus on "toxin" alone. raygirvan Apr 18 2005
- I take it that all toxins are poisons, and that all toxins are toxicants. But by the definitions given in the article, it sounds like all other poisons are toxicants too. So why have two words for the same thing (toxicant/poison), if the point of the article is to delineate toxins from all other [non-toxin] poisons? Also, from User:Jag123's comment above, it looks like the words "poisonous" and "toxic" are perfectly synonymous ("not everything that's toxic is a toxin"); could somebody please distinguish amongst these terms (poison, toxicant, toxin)? Thank you. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed: I've edited it accordingly to focus on "toxin" alone. raygirvan Apr 18 2005
Is anyone familiar with bacterial toxins? Are they actually produced with the purpose of self-defense as opposed to just being present in the structural components or a by-product of its metabolism?
- It can be both. Especially fungi makes lot of toxin for bacterial defence, and some bacteria also do it against 'each other'. But as you yourself point out, they can be byproducts of their own metabolismen, which is excreted. I study biology at the University of Copenhagen. ----
- What do bacterial toxins consist of? Are they neurotoxic? Hematotoxic? Irritants?-Rolypolyman 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Alt Med Rudeness
The *ahem* venom in the sentence on complementary medicine was way out of line with NPOV. People doing complementary medicine use a different definition of the word. Fine. You should be able to read this article without thinking that it's a scathing, non-specific attack on complementary medicine. DanKeshet 06:35, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- OK, so don't delete it - rephrase it in a way that you see as NPOV, but without blunting the specific detail that it's not merely a different usage, but one that mainstream science considers utter BS. The different usage is a matter of observation, and it's also a matter of observation that scientists have criticised it, both on grounds of it being a misnomer and the nature of such toxins being generally unproven. RayGirvan 10:49, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The current version is much better than the old version I edited from. But when it says "mainstream scientists argue that the nature of such substances is usually unproven", that's pretty much useless. If someone wants to call mercury a "toxin", no mainstream scientist is going to argue it isn't deleterious to health, they might just say you have your terminology wrong. The current statement is just so broad it could apply to anything. DanKeshet 17:51, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Whatever the proper semantics may be, the use of toxin as a biological substance for attack/defense does seem inconsistant with the common use in alt medicine. Especially with the many questionable methods of 'detox' (what are they removing exactly, how much is there, would the body do it on its own anyway, and is it even dangerous?) what is really being dealt with needs identifying. Perhaps we should communicate this, I know it's common jargon since 'toxin' is shorter than 'toxic substances'. Perhaps this is evidence of the word definition altering in culture, and we should specify toxin to be more of a broad thing? Venom does seem more accurate in classing biological defense mechanisms. Tyciol 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I noticed a "citation needed" tag on the paragraph about alternative medicine's definition of "toxin". I'm confident that Kevin Trudeau addresses that in his book "Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About - many of these "natural cures" actually involve simply staying away from these toxins - but I do not have the book on my person at the moment, so I cannot provide any direct quotations. I do remember that Kevin Trudeau describes these manmade agents as "toxins" simply to emphasize their health-disrupting qualities in a way that the average layperson can understand, since the average layperson really doesn't give a hoot about how the word "toxin" is formally used. To your average Joe, the word "toxin" is simply a synonym for "poison", and the definition that alternative medicine uses for "toxin" merely caters to this informality. --Luigifan (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the various "detoxes" are simply meant to help the body to get rid of the toxins. Alternative medicine does not claim that its techniques cure the body's ills (partially because that's technically not true, and partially because the pharmaceutical industry has explicitly threatened to sue the very life out of alternative-medicine-practitioners if they claim to have a better success rate than "conventional" medicine.) What alternative medicine can promise is that their techniques help the body to cure itself, since the human body is really the only thing capable of repairing itself. --Luigifan (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Toxin, Poison, Toxic
It would seem that "toxin" is being confused with "poison" and with "toxic". Several comments are actually about toxic substances, e.g., "mercury" is a toxic substance. However, toxins are normally poisons that are produced by bioligical means. Snake venom, botulinin toxin (common food poisoning), etc. I will try to clarify some of the paragraphs as time allows. This is only a subtle difference, but when researching one will quickly find the terms used in a clear range in significant articles. El guero "Wayne"
- You're absolutely right. I corrected the article by merging with biotoxin (redundant) and copyediting appropriately. – ClockworkSoul 02:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if the word 'phycotoxin' should appear in this definition. there is no separate entry for this word, yet I came across this word in a book proposal today. it is basically a synonym for 'seafood toxin' zuzubel 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Not accurate to say that "When toxins are generated by bacteria, they are called toxoids." Toxoids are toxins that have been modified to make them non-harmful without removing their ability to induce an immune response (as, in fact, described on the Wikipedia page for toxoids). Sophisticated penguin 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I took the toxoid information out and added "Toxoid" to the "Also See" section. The first part of what I removed was clearly in conflict with the "Toxoid" article, and the part pointing the error out says that the line above is "plain wrong" and so, is out of place. Besides, if toxoids are not toxins then there is little reason to include it, right?
Here it is: The phrase "When toxins are generated by bacteria, they are called toxoids" is plain wrong, although toxoids are indeed of bacterial origin (eg from C. diphtheriae or C. tetani), the term toxoid stems from tox-oid (toxin-like). Toxoids are defined correctly as modified toxins that have lost their specific activity but still can be used to induce antibodies recognizing and neutralizing the authentic toxins. This restricts the use of "toxoid" to Diphtheria and Tetanus and the respective vaccines.
--Globalist1789 21:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Vira = Toxins?
As the text points out, toxins are biological substances made by cells. But does this mean that virus' are also toxins? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC).
- No, because the production of viral particles by an infected cell is a result of a specific pathological process, a viral infection. The definition of viruses as living organisms is problematic, as because they have no own metabolism, can't multiply without host cell and are not cells at all. Yet, viruses are clearly considered by most (in fact all known to my) biologist to be one of the lowest forms of life (along with prions), therefore, a virus is considered to be an organism.
Toxin is also considered a defined molecule; viruses are not defined molecules, they are composed of more, if not many, molecules.--184.108.40.206 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My class needs antonyms for toxin. can you write it here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catwoman7770 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The info of PSP toxins...
The infos of ASP toxin
The infos of DSP toxins...
Toxins from meat....
universal warning picture
Isn't this picture (used in the article) also the "universal warning symbol" for pirates? I mean, is this really the "universal warning symbol" for toxins? --220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Dangerous substances symbol
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content and topic of general interest. The article is more stub than start and needs references. - tameeria 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)|
Last edited at 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 09:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Why isnt alcohol mentioned?