From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Color, contents and meaning[edit]

Can we cover the various colors and their meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents/ Properties The description is good but does anybody know the PKN numbers for urine as fertilizer? ... This source says carbon 11 to 17 N 15-19 percent calcium 4-6 potassium 3-5 phosphorous 2-5

Then it says that one person's urine could grow enough wheat and/or maize for a year supply for that person, which seems a bit vague, but interesting.

I'm not sure how to use the above numbers to calculate the PKN but will look around. Canbyte (talk)canbyte

Anon addition[edit]

In humans, urinating on feet can be an effective way of aliviating athlete's foot. Additionally there is some evidence indicating the use of urine applied to the face as means to control acne.

Added by an anon with no ref, so I placed it here. --DanielCD 23:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Madonna told David Letterman that, but she seemed stoned at the time, so I would recommend another source. CrossEyed7 21:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if there were a reference for that, it would belong on the human urine page, not here. 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

ADD A PIC?????????????????????????? Actually it isnt an effective way at all. Urin containts the substance urea which is used in almost all athletes foot medications, however it is only used as a way of softening and opening up the skin to the other chemicals in the medication. Urea alone does not have any anti-fungal properties.

Sterility of urine[edit]

I have an issue with the following:

Urine is often sterile, but if the person or animal has a disease, the disease could appear in the urine. Additionally, any bacteria on the skin can contaminate urine.

First, what does 'often' mean? Second, the 'disease could appear' seems too vague. And third, 'bacteria on the skin could contaminate urine.' ...Um... Bacteria and other microbes from LOTS of things can and will contaminate urine once it leaves the body. I think the section should read something like:

The urine of healthy individuals is sterile, however some illnesses (particularly infections of the urinary tract or kidneys) can result in temporary or periodic bacterial contamination.

I think the whole sentence about what happens to urine once it leaves the body should go.--Anchoress 00:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anchoress,

Urine is always sterile in the bladder of a healthy human being. The first source of possible, though very light, contamination with bacteria is the urethra, when the urine is excreted. The second source of bacteria are parts of the genitals, with which the urine might come into contact while flowing out of the body. The third source is bacteria, mold seeds, pollen etc. flying thru the air and "raining down" into the urine, when it is collected in a bowl, glass or bottle.

That's why you should not catch and drink the first few seconds of a piss ( first source of contamination ), and drink it within a minute after pissing ( third source of contamination ).

To eliminate the second source of contamination, proper washing/bathing/showering of the genitals is advised.  ;)

Recent research has cast doubt on the sterility of the bladder of healthy individuals. Often, there are commensal mycoplasmas and other bacteria there. [1] (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Frankly, apart from the non-notability of a lot of confident assertions about such things as the sterility of bodily fluids, they appear to become increasingly confident as the evidence increasingly casts doubt on them. What the statements usually mean is that people had failed to cultivate bacteria or fungi from the fluids (and don't even MENTION viruses!) As we discover more types of bacteria, and better ways of detecting or culturing them, we keep finding more bacteria in more places where we never found them before (such as in the placenta on the child's side!) Secondly, consider such things as contamination from the urethra, which usually are pretty benign. Or the pollen or spores from the air after a few minutes exposure; if you are to worry about them, then what about eating a plate of ordinary food or drinking a juice or a beer? If you happen to enjoy piss swilling, do so in good health, but don't demand to be taken seriously! If its only benefit depends on whether it is genuinely sterile or not, then I'd sooner drink Macdonald's coffee. JonRichfield (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

may require cleanup[edit]

I would like to point out just how hilarious it is that an article on urine is adorned with a sign that says it "requires cleanup". That is all.

LOL you're right!!--Potty Time 01:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this article is so short; look at Penis for example! Shandristhe azylean 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Short? What are you calling short?--Anchoress 20:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Healthy urine is a clear aqueous solution, varying in colour from dark yellow to colourless" ... what? --Nick

I find it funny it asks for an expert in the section to do a cleanup... im not sure but how do you class a urine expert, and would you want to be known as one :P 06:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the cleanup should be just backup. I can add some structure. I'm surprised that munitions could be a section. 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well its true that urine can and is used to create saltpeter, common to most explosives. Although in modern times its usually used in home-made "labs" of teenagers looking to blow something up in their yard. I have found nothing in google searches using urine from an industrial manufacturing stand point in any time line.--DeusXechelon

Need medical references for the health aspects[edit]

The health aspects of urine need medical references to substantiate the points which very possibly seem to be myths.

Very possibly true. However please don't annotate articles; a cleanup or verify tag for the section would be more appropriate.
I'm not putting {{fact}} tags in, because what I haven't heard before

strikes me as 08:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Health section - urine as an antiseptic[edit]

Personally I don't think the text about urine being used as an antiseptic - both the statement itself and the info about urine storage succeeding it - should be kept in the article. Even if it is referenced, I don't think it's encyclopedic. IMO it's like stating in the muffin tin article that muffin tins can be used to collect rainwater; true, but irrelevant. I also think it's bordering on an instruction manual, which Wikipedia is not.--Anchoress 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually after reading the Health section carefully I don't think it belongs in the article in its present form. I've removed it and placed it here, because it's POV and frankly a little unbelievable. It should be supported by sources before reinsertion, IMO.
Fresh urine is sterile and may be used as an antiseptic - for the sterilization, the urine has to flow directly from the urethra onto the wound. It is important to know that once the urine has left the body, it becomes an ideal breeding ground for a wide range of bacteria, which multiply in it at an astonishing speed. Urine which is older than a minute is not suitable anymore for consumption, and should not even be used externally.
Urine is absorbed into the body quicker than water or juices through the stomach, which makes it a natural choice for recovering desiccated patients in the absence of more technologically advanced methods.
The alternative medicine of homeopathy has rediscovered a range of other uses for urine, ranging from the direct treatment of skin to the consumption of urine.
--Anchoress 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that that there is a problem here. The statements made above are contradictory in nature. If urine becomes a breeding ground for bacteria, how is it that it is an antiseptic, which by definition retards the growth of bacteria? If what was said is meant to say is that urine can be used to wash a wound instead of some questionable source of water, then I would be more inclined to agree but would still like to see a reference to some medical work. Patris Magnus 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Comment moved and re-written Patris Magnus 02:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I had the notion that it isn't fresh urine that was once used as an antiseptic, but aged --broken down partially into ammonia, which many species of bacteria are not going to thrive in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Jellyfish Stings[edit]

I removed the following section as it is un-cited, and simply put, the sterility of urine has no effect on the sting of a jellyfish. If urine chemically nulls the sting of a jellyfish, will the OP or someone else please provide a citation and/or a chemical reaction chain to show this effect?

It is also useful to use urine on a jellyfish sting as it is sterile.
According to the book "Why Do Men Have Nipples?" urine is not a good thing to put on a jellyfish sting, though since I don't have the book with me now I can't provide citation and can't remember the reasoning behind it Pnkrockr 14:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the book I mentioned above: "In laboratory tests, urine, ammonia, and alcohol can cause active stinging cells to fire, which means applying them has the potential to make a minor sting worse, so urinating on a jellyfish sting is both gross and painful."

Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg, M.D. Pnkrockr 00:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe this "myth" came from an episode of "Friends". As I recall, Monica, Joey and Chandler were walking on the beach and Monica stepped on a Man-o-War. Chandler peed on her stinging feet to stop the pain.

Well, I highly doubt it actually came from Friends, they don't just make up random nonsense for the purpose of pissing on someones feet, but no doubt it helped to popularise it yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Watersports and "Piss Porn"[edit]

Is this really a significant enough feature of the topic to merit inclusion in the initial lines of the article, or is it better relegated to a back-alley later in their article, or with a link to Urolagnia or something? Frankly, featuring it so prominently seems to me to harm the credibility of the article. --Rrburke 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I believe that you are probably right. I was just moving something that was out of place in another area and cleaning up the grammar. I'll pull it. - Patris Magnus 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

American sensors distaste of urine[edit]

On a lot of tv dvd commentaries I hear how the American TV sensors hate two things above all else, wee and poo jokes and cursing against the christian god. Even as far to get around this they can't use yellow liquid in sketches for pee, only clear water. My point is, is it worth adding that pee is obviously stigmtatised even in todays relatively liberal media? JayKeaton 04:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It would be best to cite an authoritative observer who has drawn that conclusion already. --Dystopos 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea, I didn't think of that JayKeaton 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean "censors"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be used to clean open wounds, why?[edit]

i have always just told my self that urine shouldn't be put on a wound because "IT'S URINE!". but i recently heard on Penn and Teller's Bullshit and read on here that it is pretty sterile. this made me wonder if it would be safe to put on wounds. but then it says on here that it should not be put on wounds. is this because of the contamination from the skin? or is it just not sterile enough or have some 'ingredients' that would do more bad than good? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

The urine of a healthy person is sterile. But you're right... IT'S URINE!!!!!11!!!11!!!1!! There's no good reason to put urine on a wound. It's acidic and therefore an irritant; it contains particulate matter, dead cells, etc, even when it's healthy, it isn't a very good or even a fair antiseptic, and... IT'S URINE. It may contain sugars, protein and other things that bugs consider good to eat, and it may contain bugs. Anchoress 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd place it only slightly higher than sea water from the gut of a shellfish on the list of things with which to wash a wound. Simply put, the only time I would wash out a wound with urine would be if it was severely contaminated with dirt and there was no fresh water available. Patris Magnus 22:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... knives can be sterilized... maybe I should put a knife in my wound? That's what I thought (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Brimstone? What are we writing here? The bible? It's sulfur or sulphur.

In the period in which families were making gunpowder by hand at home, they used the more common names for many substances. Saltpeter and brimstone were words in common use in the US through the beginning of the industrial period, ergo, my use of these words. Patris Magnus 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Surviving by Drinking Urine. Fact or Fiction?[edit]

Pretty self-explanatory title, but I've heard conflicting arguments...Now to hear the opinions of many many Wikipedians.

In the long term, the build up of toxins in the system may be of issue if urine is continuously consumed. In the short term, if you are loosing water faster than you can replenish, such as you might if stranded in the desert, the drinking of urine can keep you alive a little longer. Patris Magnus 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not the toxins as much as the salt content in the urine that got me wondering. If you drink saltwater in any form than you get thirstier and die a lot quicker.

Not exactly true. If the concentration of salt in the liquid you are drinking is higher than the concentration of salt in your cells (hypertonic), such as would be the case if you were to drink sea water, then yes, you will accelerate dehydration. In the case if being in the desert where you are losing water through sweat as well as urination, if you were to save your urine and then continue to sweat, the urine would actually be a hypotonic solution after a while, thus being an emergency source of water. There is a recent story of a distance runner that got lost in North Africa and had to survive off of eating bats and drinking his own urine before he was found. Interesting stuff Patris Magnus (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Urine Composition: Demographics (Suggested for Removal)[edit]

Section seems pointless, and doesn't make any sense. Unless I'm missing something. Drake 22:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I managed to understand it, but it is unsourced and doesn't seem particularly relevant, so I say go ahead. Or if you want to be more generous, see who added it (I don't think it's been there very long) and ask the editor to reference/expand/justify it. Anchoress 01:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does make sense it however does need to be expanded upon and sources cited. --Deusxechelon 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)--DeusXechelon —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of actual urination[edit]

In order to provide a clearer idea of what this article is about as well as to simply improve its overall quality, I think an image of actual urine leaving an open urethra would greatly improve this article. As of now, there are no pictures, so an image of a gaping urethra pouring out vibrantly neon urine would do wonders for the betterment of the article. --GoatSmoke 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

wtf dude03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) (talk)tilde
If you or anyone needed a picture of this then i would suggest memory exercises, because you probably urinate 2+ times a day. Krmarshall (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


There should be a section on this article that lists other terms for urine. There are several (piddle, pee, etc.), and these need to be listed on this article so that they can be cited. Without citation of these terms, there is no basis for having a link to urine on the piddle and pee disambiguation pages. These citations cannot be included on these other pages because disambiguation page guidelines prohibit citations. This is due to the established practice that no information should exist on a disambiguation page that does not also exist on an article linked in one of its entries. A synonyms section is necessary in order to justify these entries on disambiguation pages.

Neelix (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


We need some pics of urine on this article so people who don't know what urine looks like can see what it looks like. (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted we know how to pee right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave the pictures? People may be looking to this page to see what range of color normal pee is if they're worried about a disease or infection. That being said, perhaps there should be more information on how pee can be discolored from various diseases or infections and which ones do what. On a side note, I find it hilarious that the toilet picture was taken at a museum. It makes it very confusing as to whether the toilet is part of an exhibit at the museum or merely inside a restroom at the museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My issue with this picture is simply that how can we really be sure that it is actually human urine, or even urine at all? Is there a verifiable source (as per wikipedia guidelines) identifying this? (talk) 02:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it safe to drink?[edit]

Maybe we could add a paragraph in there about its edibility, how many times can you drink your own urine if ur in the dessert ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varsponic (talkcontribs) 20:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is controversial, as Urine therapy. Khullah (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly safe to drink! (although it may seem disgusting to the majority of people). But, MANY people drink it. The logic is similar to how vaccines work. (A vaccine gives you a 'trace amount' of a virus so that your body can generate anti-bodies to kill the virus. in a similar way, if the person drinks their urine, they are ingesting small traces of their own ailments (which the body learns to kill due to the small amount ingested). Some people drink their urine to help rid of a specific known ailment; while other people drink urine as a safety measure for any ailments that they are not aware of.

also: applying urine to the Skin is said to clear all kinds of spots and make the skin more smooth.

 - it would be nice to see these included somehow into the article.

Easybullet3 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Needs Pictures!![edit]

Seriously, This article could use some pictures of wee, as long as they are educational and tasteful. Retro Agnostic (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a man peeing into a toilet? That seems like a pretty understandable way of showing what urine is. I was thinking, if we just show a graduated cylinder with urine inside, it might not be obvious where it came from, which could also be clarified by the image. I feel like its important to be as inclusive as possible, in terms of providing a comprehensive basis on which purveyors may attribute a sense of intuitive and readily available understanding: What is it, where does it come from, and where is its most appropriate storage space, if you will? (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


The articles Urine and Human urine are almost identical. Maintaining two articles will lead to problems with version control. A merge into one article seems sensible. The more generic article Urine seems appropriate. WWGB (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

support merge with human urine.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
On the face of it, a merger sounds good, but perhaps I'm missing something. What arguements are there against a merger? If there are any, they ought to be considered with great care.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

old school descriptions of urine - frothy, bubbly[edit]

I believe there are "old" descriptions of urine that are indicative of pathology or physiologic processes that are slightly near pathology. For example, I think frothy urine means higher protein in the urine. I think bubbly urine may be something else. And for D.M., people used to taste the urine and it was sweet. For D.I., it was watery, but not sweet. Can we add this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

narrow focus[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but many, many animals excrete urine, yes? This article (specifically the lede) seems entirely focused on human urine and the associative process. Why? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Seriously, what? Urea has a smell. It's a strong and obvious smell because it's so universal to being human, since it's a component of sweat too, we're designed to detect it. It's just that urine shouldn't have a -strong- odor unless you're dehydrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's this distinctive smell thing. There are numerous examples of the question posted on forums as to why urine smells particularly of that thing where you have eaten asparagus and sugar puffs. I don't like it that someone changed my edit when I put Sugar Puffs. If asparagus features there then so should Sugar Puffs. The reason I feel so strongly about that is because I cannot think of any other foods that are so specially conducive to exiting with their smell in tact, although apparently perhaps instead of removing Sugar Puffs, beetroot may be added? Though I don't really eat beetroot. Eugene-elgato (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is urine in blood?[edit]

I believe this question has a lot of answers to it. Of course the usual "yes" and "no".

Urine is a residue from blood and so all the constituents of urine are in the blood. But until these constituents come together through the kidneys (normal), urine is not formed.

In severe kidney infections and failures, these constituents accumulate in the blood and so medically, "urine"(not real but constituents) is found in the blood.

Urine cannot be thus taken out of blood samples but of course, large amounts of constituents of urine will be found in acute or severe infections.

Prof. Micheal Doughlas Columbia Retromedical Centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

other names[edit]

Urine is also known by not just it's chemical or scientific name but also many street names such as "piss", "tinkle", "wizz" and many other names that people just love to say lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glennald (talkcontribs) 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on adding a part about the origin of the term Piss to mean urinate, but need to refind the readers digest fact books I saw it in. I think it comes from the fountain de Piss in france, which depicts a little boy urinating. Corrupt one (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Opening statement[edit]

Urine has many uses and I point out that it is similar to amniotic fluid. Starting the page with "Unine is a waste.." may not be accurate. Urine in the form of hydroxyurea is used to treat brain and testicular cancer. Urine is used to clean wounds such as a foot scrape on coral reefs. Urine is used in the tanning process to preserve the skin into leather. I find the connotation of being a "toxic waste" is not neutral and self limiting especially in the opening paragraph. Something more like, "urine is excreated from the body from kidney filtration of nitrogen from the blood". Taking out the words "toxic" and "waste" might allow a better article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reboundhealth (talkcontribs) 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Normal Frequency[edit]

No reference to average human urination frequency, very difficult to find any anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The article discusses "volume" which is a more meaningful measure. Arbalest Mike (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

urea: toxic or not?[edit]

I find it confusing that this article on urine mentions the toxic nature of urea while the urea page it links to says urea is relatively non-toxic. These are not the same statement, so which is correct?

pH of Urine[edit]

I am concerned about the accuracy of the quoted average pH value of urine in this article only because it conflicts with another source I read on the same subject -

In the link I provided for the conflicting source it quotes the average pH value of urine as being 6.0 which is outside the figure quoted in this wikipedia article which states "The pH of urine is close to neutral (7) but can normally vary between 6.5 and 7.4". (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My most recent urinalysis shows the Reference Range for urine pH to be 5.0-7.5. -- (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I too am concerned about this quote as well as the statement about Citrus raising the pH, Citrus is acidic so I'm not sure that is correct.

It is correct! Source: I'm a medical student. Proof: "effect of bicarbonate that is generated by intrahepatic metabolism of citrate." Bicarbonate is alkaline.

Not so trustworthy but better explained: "Citrate can also be metabolized in the body to bicarbonate, which causes the urine to become more alkaline (less acidic). "

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I added a dubious template, seems incorrect or at least ambiguous. Maybe, in the long term, an acidic diet could result in lower HCl production in the stomach, but in that case the next statement about sodium bicarbonate increasing the pH is ambiguous, since it increases urine pH in the short term but can increase acid production in the long term due to upregulation of stomach acid. Not to mention other feedback mechanisms due to co2 respiration, respiratory acidosis or alkalosis ...

In general, eating will lower the acidity (higher pH), fasting will lower pH. (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A common misconception is that eating an acidic aliment acidifies urine. This is wrong because CO2 is exhaled by respiration. -- O.C. (22/07/2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize that the article is locked, so I can't correct it. Here are is few information.

  • "Dairy can increase urine pH" is wrong, it's the contrary.
  • The keyword is Potential Renal Acid Load (PRAL index)
  • References are:
Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine pH, T. Remer and F. Manz, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 95, p. 791 (1995) doi:10.1016/S0002-8223(95)00219-7
Influence of nutrition on acid-base balance -- metabolic aspects, T. Remer, European Journal of Nutrition, vol. 40, p. 214 (2001) doi: 10.1007/s394-001-8348-1

Ytkiyt457 (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC) O.C. (22/07/2012)

I do SELF TESTING using 2 different kinds of Litmus Paper. (one is broad range, from 1-14). Then I have Narrow range testing strips that give me a more precise measurement. I am vegan and eat a LOT of FRUIT; (way more than anyone I know); and my urine is always around Ph8. many foods react different once they have travelled through your digestive system. Some can be Acid forming, and some can be Alkaline forming. (search online for Alkaline forming foods) and you will see loads of info. Most fruit is Alkaline forming. most milk and meats are Acid forming. (hence dairy making urine more acidic). Easybullet3 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


<.quote> Amniotic fluid is closely related to urine, and can be analyzed by amniocentesis. Sample of human urine. </.quote> I think this may be false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Physicochemical is misspelled in the urine article as "phisicochemical". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

new book[edit]

There is a new book out, that sounds as if it will be a good source: The Life of Pee: The Story of How Urine Got Everywhere by Sally Magnusson.

Edit request from , 4 November 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Grammar error in Other Uses - Agriculture: "There views seem to be backed by research showing there are.." should be: "Their views seem to be backed by research showing there are.." (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


Cloudy urine can also be caused by traces of semen from recent arousal or ejaculation. This obviously only applies to men.

This can't be left out of the article, surely? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 February 2012[edit]

Article on Urine 1) Section on Hydrogen, 2nd sentence, 'urine' should be replaced with 'urea': Unlike water UREA has four hydrogen atoms per molecule.... The reference is the same one the author cited in the bibliography. The error may be either a misprint or a misunderstanding of the reference. 2) Section on color. Far better review in The Significance of Abnormal Urine Color by Martha K. Terris, M.D.; Assistant Professor of Urology; Chief of Urology, Veterans' Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System This article is more inclusive and corrects or clarifies some of the information contained in the Wikipedia article. It appears to reflect a greater depth of knowledge of the subject than the Wikipedia article. (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC) David M. Murphy, M.D.

Done The first part is done. The second part does not include a specific request. Please express your request in a 'please change X to Y' level of detail and reactivate the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


This article defines anuria as the production of <100 mL of urine per day, whereas the linked article on the subject defines it as the production of <50 mL per day. The citation on the anuria page is a dead end. Does anyone know which of these is correct? I'd like to see this inconsistency cleared up. Roseaceous (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012[edit]

Please Change "In developing countriesthe use of whole raw sewage" to "In developing countries the use of whole raw sewage" because I am sure that is what the author intended.

Jpcode32 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is DNA in urine[edit]


urine needs some serious work. There is DNA in urine. Cell-free DNA in urine has been the subject of modern research as well as how to best preserve that DNA. See:

Smallman12q (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC) (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It probably could use some work. I removed the edit request for now. Is there a reason you can't create an account and edit it yourself?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
They are not covered in Genital modification and mutilation. Read it. In any case, that does not preclude summarising them in the article. Perhaps you have some other reasons you would like to share? (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Urine in Sex - Consensus discussion[edit]

Please add this to the section "Other uses" Urine in Sex

Urolagnia (also urophilia, undinism, golden shower and watersports) is a paraphilia in which sexual excitement is associated with the sight or thought of urine or urination. Some participants may drink the urine; this practice is known as urophagia, though uraphagia refers to the consumption of urine regardless of whether the context is sexual. Urolagnia enthusiasts may participate in urolagnia as part of a domination and submission scene, though not all sexual activity involving urine is so. These activities are often described with the slang terms golden showers, water sports, or piss play. As a paraphilia, urine may be consumed or the person may bathe in it. Other variations include arousal from wetting or seeing someone else urinate in their pants or underclothes, or wetting the bed. (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done. This would be a consensus discussion not an edit request.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Urolagnia is a popular activity - Urolagnia gets 60,000 hits a month. At the moment it is not even linked to on this page. It is obviously relevant to urine, and I think it deserves its own section under "Other uses". (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Urolagnia is a popular activity - Urolagnia gets 60,000 hits a month. At the moment it is not even linked to on this page. It is obviously relevant to urine, and I think it deserves its own section under "Other uses". Consensus has been requested for this move. (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

"Urolagnia is a popular activity - Urolagnia gets 60,000 hits a month". Spot the failure of logic there, anyone? If it was that popular, why would people need to read Wikipedia articles on it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you arguing for inclusion because it is unpopular, or to stop people reading about it because they need to? (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

* Comment: Seems to me that the request for inclusion or even for reference is looking-glass logic. While it might make perfect sense for Urolagnia et al to have links to urine, it would be totally unnecessary for urine to have complementary links to Urolagnia; after all, we don't have links to gerontophilia in articles on gerontology, or exhibitionism in articles on genitals, though the contrary could easily be justified. The request is reminiscent of the kind tunnel vision one often finds when people wish to exalt their own preoccupations or leanings. Not that I care much one way or another about an extra section or link; it is just that it makes no sense in context and accordingly would contribute nothing to the quality of the article. JonRichfield (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I often use soda cans for target practice. This, however, is not the reason for the soda can's existence. There are also people who enjoy consuming soda cans. Again, this is not why the soda can exists. Soda cans exist for the sole purpose of packaging a beverage for later consumption. Urine exists for the sole purpose of waste disposal. That said, I believe there shouldn't be a section on "other uses", period. Like JonRichfield suggested, such things should link back to urine from the article in which they are described. This article, and other "taboos" like dried nasal mucus, have a habit of accumulating copies of whatever nonsense one can sneak in. This happens because it is both entertaining, or because an editor feels he must ease his inner concerns by documenting his viewpoint as mainstream. The reality is that both of these are points of view that put undue weight on a subject. POV-pushing is NOT welcome here. Krushia (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

* Comment:Use of soda cans for target practise deserves mention in a soda can article, as does their use for pipes - perhaps - but should be discussed there. Urine serves cleansing functions, and who are you to say it is not intended for sexual play - it is warm, sterile, and comes from the genitals. The fact that some gain sexual pleasure from urine seems as relevant as the use of urine for gunpowder or tanning purposes- which certainly belong here. (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course Alice, of course, and who could doubt it? Now all you need do is to produce text and images that meet WP standards of literacy, cogency, content, coherence, and relevance that logically justify the discussion of urolagnia in the urine article, and no one will have any basis for complaint. Till then I am afraid that your stand will have to satisfy interested participants alone and unsupported. You could start by correcting your physiological insights; for example if your impression is that urine comes from genitals your mummy has left a lot of your education incomplete while instructing you in looong haaard words like errr... oh yes! Urolagnia. Ask her to explain to you about kidneys and for some reasons why you should regard the bladder as a genital organ. After all, your criteria so far could as well apply to coffee or tea (warmth, sterility, pleasure and emission from.... oh, never mind!) Better include a passage on coffee and tea in tanning in the text you wish wish to insert into this article. Do have fun! And if you feel like linking urolagnia to this page, I am sure no one would object, unless the urolagnians are feeling shy. JonRichfield (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Urine comes into the world through the penis and vulva, that is to say, from the genitals. This is, I think, clear. (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Far from being clear or even accurate, it doesn't so much as make sense. One might as well call a pocket a lethal weapon because one could carry a pistol in it. "Genital" means "(organs of) generation", from Latin gignere (to beget). The fact that the urethral orifice in females is located in the vulva though it is in no way a genital passage, and that in males a short length of duct passes more than one kind of product (though only one at a time, as you might be interested to observe should you ever examine its detailed morphology and physiology) doesn't mean that everything passing through must be genital. You might equally validly call ejaculation and parturition excretion because their products pass through or close to excretory passages, as you might call urine a genital product because it passes through a passage that briefly and incidentally, though not simultaneously, accommodates procreative materials as well, in one sex at least. While you are at it, why not do some reading up on corresponding associations with coprolagnia and fellatio? (But if you do, please spare us your insights!) JonRichfield (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I am confused by your argument. Urine comes from the vulva and penis, but not from genital organs, and hence non sexual? There are reliable sources for it's use in sex. (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
You really are trolling aren't you? I cannot think of any more charitable interpretation. Charitably then, I am not supposed to feed you. Less charitably, feeding you would be futile. So 'bye for now! Have fun... JonRichfield (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. I don't understand your argument- urine comes through genitals, but is not connected to them, just as a pocket may contain a gun? (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of Urination[edit]

Why is the main illustration so medical? Yellow liquid in a plastic bottle could be anything. I understand that this article is not about urination, but a picture of urine leaving a urethral tract would surely add to it, and would be the most natural way of showing the liquid. (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The article is about urine, not about urination. Please go and celebrate your fetishes someplace else. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks Urine comes from bladders not glass bottles. A yellow liquid in a bottle could be anything- urine leaving the ureatha is what it is. You would exclude the chicken from the Egg (food) article? (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Very much irrespective of the foregoing argument for emergence from urethral tract being the definitive attribute for identifying urine, I must admit that out of context the picture of urine in a bottle is neither very informative or edifying. It might as well be pineapple juice. I would have argued for omitting the picture completely, and still do, except for the reservation that there are some other pictures that could justify it, such as the green urine for comparison. I say that the pictures should be suitably juxtaposed, and possibly that other illustrative material should be added, such as the difference in colour between the urine of someone in boot camp who has been doing a day's square bashing in a desert summer, or the cloudiness of urine after a good feed of raw tomatoes. Or red urine after a meal of beets. Or strongly fluorescent urine after a hefty meal of fresh liver (riboflavin and all that). Some of those I might help with if necessary, but I am NOT going back to boot camp! Oh, and with due respect to the obsessions of '83, I do not demand that the various samples be shown in the process of emission. JonRichfield (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks please! Why not in process of emission? what exactly would this detract from the images? (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hm? I never attacked anyone, personally or impersonally, not by word nor by implication nor intention. If you want a picture of urination, or a dozen pictures of urination, either by male or female, mule or man, we would all applaud your supplying and inserting them. The only reservation would be that their quality, value, and relevance to the article in question should be patently clear and material. Noooo problemo! Exactly how you would establish all that in an article on urine, given that there are independent articles on urination and urinary organs, escapes me of course, otherwise I would be supplying suitable material myself if I could locate any. I did accept, you will remember, that the picture in its current context is pointless; if someone could supply a picture of the emission of pineapple juice from a urethra to match the picture of the sample of urine, accompanying it by text pointing out the hazards attendant on associating intrinsic attributes with apparent origin, there would be some point, but to show yellow liquid in the process of emission tells one no more about its nature than showing it in a sample container. Note the difference between your remark and the suggestion that several visibly different, materially distinct samples should be shown. Showing them in the process of production would be less informative, not more, because the turbulent stream would be less characteristic of the bulk liquid than a clear container would be. (Unless someone has a photo of the emission of mucus-rich urine, in which case I would agitate energetically for its inclusion, together with a photograph of urination of normal urine; that could be relevant to suitable text in the article, see? See?) JonRichfield (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling correction[edit]

Please someone correct: in the section "Agriculture", the word "implemenations" needs to be changed to "implementations". Thank you

Done. William Avery (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Why does lant redirect to urine?-- (talk) 18:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Metals Section[edit]

This section claims that urine was used to strengthen engine blocks but the support for this is very weak. If there isn't additional support here or in the article I will eventually remove this claim from the article.

The footnote and other sources only refer to BMW engineers "relieving" themselves on the engine blocks (i.e. there is NO substantiation that it had any effect at all). Furthermore, any liquid applied like this would be "spotty" (pun intended) at best and only interact with surface molecules, if at all. This is quite different than quenching forged metals by immersion in urine (also questionable). The following link addresses this as a "myth". Arbalest Mike (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Arbalest Mike (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Clean-up[edit]

Many of the sections here are not about the article but rather about the subject. On the top of the page it states:

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

With that in mind I suggest an edit to this "talk" page to remove the following sections: Roman Laundramat, Cocaine detection periods in a urine drug screen, shouldnt be used to clean open wounds, Urine, Urine smell, Urine as medicine, urinating during sleep, Is urine in blood?, hhh, Engine Damage.

There are other tenuous sections but at least they refer to the article rather than the subject. But maybe some of those should be removed as well.Arbalest Mike (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Arbalest Mike (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Sterility of urine put in question.[edit]

Recent findings say that urine isn't sterile after all, that just like the rest of the human body it contains bacterial flora that help keep the individual healthy. (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Composition of human urine[edit]

The article says that human urine contains 9.3 g/L of urea. It cannot be a fixed number, as various references cite that the pH and concentration of urine vary during the day. Furthermore, the NASA study does not cite an average, but a range, since "The measurements were made on 16 different batches of raw, unconcentrated, nonpretreated urine, each containing about 40 liters composited from 20 to 30 male subjects". The ranges in the reference are: urea 9.3 - 23.3 g/L, chloride 1.87 - 8.4 g/L, sodium 1.17 - 4.39 g/L, potassium 0.750 - 2.61 g/L, creatinine 0.670 - 2.15 g/L. Can this be changed in the article? It will serve readers better, as the number for urea, 9.3 g/L is found in many searches, and come from this article. Tinkerer02 (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. There is a strong temptation to throw in fixed (often ridiculously precise) figures with an air of great authority, where precision is nonsensical. In any case such an isolated figure is useless out of context. What is needed is a discussion of the ranges of values and their associated significance. JonRichfield (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2014[edit]

My son is doing a project on using wastewater for energy production and internet searching led to the wiki page on "urine". It has been well established that urine is sterile, i.e., non-pathogenic, except in specific cases of an individual having an infection.

The very first paragraph of this page incorrectly and misleadingly ends with "Certain disease conditions can result in pathogen-contaminated urine.[1]". While that might be true in specific instances, the reference cited is not even related to the statement/claim which references it.

The word "pathogen" is does not even appear on the referenced page nor does the word "disease".

The reference [1],, and the sentence referring to it should not be used at all because it is unrelated and misleading, especially so since it appears in the very first paragraph of the wiki. This sentence and reference may have been added by a uninformed and/or malicious user. (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewrites of Urine in Agriculture[edit]

I did a rather extensive overhaul of this section adding references and toning down what appeared to be a very strong bias against the use of urine as a natural fertilizer. Further, the previous version implied to a large extent it was only a bunch of Swedes that have looked into this when in fact there are big on going programs around the world. Kind of reminds me how people in Minnesota are accused of being off the deep end...strange that many are from Sweden too? LOL. Anyway if anyone has more technical information about urine as a fertilizer eventually it should be broken off into its own page. Pbmaise (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the previous people who have worked on use of urine in agriculture! I have just made some edits to it. And yes, I have plans to add more information and then to break it off into its own page. Urine use in agriculture is no longer an odd thing that only Swedes do... There are even projects in the US. Will add this information as soon as I get around to it. EvM-Susana (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I have done some work on this section. I copied it across to the new article on reuse of excreta and then modified it there. I also shortened and updated the references here. EvM-Susana (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2015[edit]

please change 'Normal urine density or specific gravity values...' to 'Normal urine density values...'. Density is not the same as specific gravity. Density is dimensional while specific gravity is dimensionless. Marzo2010 (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made the requested change because I think it makes a lot of sense. No need to have "or specific gravity" here. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Have added new pictures[edit]

I have just added three new images, I hope everyone is OK with those. I noted also the previous discussion on photos above on this talk page. I would like to propose that the new image of fresh urine in a glass jug might be better than the one that is currently used in the lead. Reason: it is less "medical" looking. It actually contains the volume that can be produced by one male in one go of urination (= content of a full bladder). But also no problem if people prefer the current photo. I thought it's interesting to show the before and after colour change, hence the two photos of the jug. I have moved that photo about the historical book to the history section. I actually wonder if it coudl perhaps be deleted or moved to a page on the history of medicine, as it's not adding much value here? It has a very long caption but is it really important for this page? EvM-Susana (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ferret attraction[edit]

Human urine has been used in the sport of ferreting since 1804. Ferrets are attracted to the pheromones produced as they are similar to those emitted by polecats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferret1012 (talkcontribs) 13:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Have trimmed the section on Fertilizer[edit]

I have trimmed the section on Fertilizer (formerly called Agriculture) because the level of detail was too high. Might have been justified before we had a separate article on this. But since 2 years we have the other article that is linked (Reuse of excreta), so no need to repeat the same content in two places. We could probably even trim it further here. SatchieNZ: don't worry you edits did not get lost. I copied them also across to the article on "reuse of excreta" which had identical content. We don't need all that detail about dilution rates here in the article on urine but rather there in the article on "reuse of excreta". EvMsmile (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

More work needed on the lead[edit]

If someone has time, could you do more work of the lead so that it is actually a summary of the article? E.g. at this stage, the lead lacks summary information about the properties of urine. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)