I don't think the cocktail was served with a hazardous symbol on it.
Liquid nitrogen in a drink?
- Thread starter TrUz
- Start date
I don't think the cocktail was served with a hazardous symbol on it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,526
- Location
- ST4
You seriously think a drink that contains the words 'Liquid Nitrogen' and is served up, presumably, by someone wearing gloves and goggles (we have to wear them when handling LiqN2 at work) really needs a hazardous materials symbol on it for someone of average intelligence to know it's dangerous?
Maybe I'm getting old and not 'down wiv da kidz', but to me it smacks of sheer stupidity to be knowingly necking back such a concoction. What happened to good old common sense?
I strongly doubt that the people working behind a bar are wearing gloves and goggles when serving these drinks, but then even if they are, why are they serving something so dangerous in the first place? How can you blame the customer for ordering and trying something on the bars menu?
Common sense doesn't apply to any 18-21 year old in this country going out for no reason other than to get completely wasted and gutter faced. People should realize that the UK club culture is not compatible with drinks containing LN.
Common sense doesn't apply to any 18-21 year old in this country going out for no reason other than to get completely wasted and gutter faced. People should realize that the UK club culture is not compatible with drinks containing LN.
Last edited:
Seems like much ado about nothing, I have had similiar cocktails at Oscars in the past without incident, as have many others. To suggest banning a non-toxic inert chemical is absurd given the number of deaths from alcohol every year in comparison. People who don't know the hazards of liquid nitrogen should probably be in an institution anyway to protect themselves from harm in the outside world.
Last edited:
TBH legal drinking age should be raised to 21 like it is in the states. I never would have thought this before, but now I do.
18 year olds + alcohol =
One girl from my 6th form died from too much alcohol in her first week at uni, apparantly not from the alcohol itself but from collapsing into an unbreathable position in her bathroom.
18 year olds + alcohol =
One girl from my 6th form died from too much alcohol in her first week at uni, apparantly not from the alcohol itself but from collapsing into an unbreathable position in her bathroom.
TBH legal drinking age should be raised to 21 like it is in the states. I never would have thought this before, but now I do.
18 year olds + alcohol =
One girl from my 6th form died from too much alcohol in her first week at uni, apparantly not from the alcohol itself but from collapsing into an unbreathable position in her bathroom.
Yeah, because that law works so well. Drinking too much is a youth problem.
The continent seems to have it right imo.
You can put your hand in liquid nitrogen with no ill effect.
The rapidly boiling gas from the heat of your hand creates and insulating glove of nitrogen gas.
The temperature isn't the issue here, vast quantities of gas are (probably similar effect to when you drop a menthos into a bottle of coke!)
The rapidly boiling gas from the heat of your hand creates and insulating glove of nitrogen gas.
The temperature isn't the issue here, vast quantities of gas are (probably similar effect to when you drop a menthos into a bottle of coke!)
Replace it with GHB. Virtually no chronic toxicity and a fast acting antidote is available. Perfect.
Except it is neurotoxic.
Very sorry for the girl in question but she's alive at least.
As to all the debate about blame: Suddenly everyone jumps on the band wagon of it's the bar's responsibility and duty of care etc yet complain like **** when being refused service because they've had too much already .... can't win it seems.
It is against the law to serve someone who is believed to be heavily under the influence but bar staff tend not to want to confront people yadda yadda ....
British drinking culture is pretty grim tbh, especially young people who seem to want to just get totally **** faced yet expect to get served even though they have problems pronouncing the name of the drink.
Personal responsibility and not blame/litigation culture really should be given a little more emphasis imo.
As to all the debate about blame: Suddenly everyone jumps on the band wagon of it's the bar's responsibility and duty of care etc yet complain like **** when being refused service because they've had too much already .... can't win it seems.
It is against the law to serve someone who is believed to be heavily under the influence but bar staff tend not to want to confront people yadda yadda ....
British drinking culture is pretty grim tbh, especially young people who seem to want to just get totally **** faced yet expect to get served even though they have problems pronouncing the name of the drink.
Personal responsibility and not blame/litigation culture really should be given a little more emphasis imo.
50 years of clinical use have not demonstrated human neurotoxicity, nor have any preclinical studies in primates. Alcohol on the other hand...
Last edited:
Have you read the more recent stuff? This is just one article I've read recently to shed some light on what we thought was safe.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Volume 36, Issue 4, April 2012, Pages 1217–1227
Possible long-term effects of γ-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) due to neurotoxicity and overdose.
Jan G.C. van Amsterdama, , , Tibor M. Bruntb, Minni T.B. McMasterb, Raymond J.M. Niesinkb
Abstract
In several countries, including the Netherlands, the use of GHB seems to be rising. GHB is regarded by recreational users as an innocent drug without any side effects. Recently, the number of patients in treatment due to GHB addiction sharply increased. In addition, various studies report incidents following risky GHB use or GHB overdosing. Other sedative drugs, like ketamine and alcohol have been shown to result in unintended neurotoxic harm at the level of memory and cognitive function. As outlined in the present review, GHB and ketamine have a common mode of action, which suggests that GHB may also lead to similar neurotoxicity as ketamine. GHB overdosing, as well as binge drinking (and high ketamine doses), induce profound coma which is probably neurotoxic for the brain especially in the maturing brain of young adults. It is therefore advocated to investigate possible long-term neurotoxic effects in recreational GHB users e.g. by studying the residual effects on cognition and memory.
Highlights
► The putative neurotoxic potential of GHB was investigated. ► Results refute the belief of users that GHB is an innocent drug. ► If confirmed, this adverse effect may be used for prevention measures.
The abstract refers to overdosing to the point of coma, which can be fatal nevermind neurotoxic, that is well known. Medical or normal recreational use is another matter entirely.
You always get the odd, dubious study popping up from time to time with any drug, no doubt from individuals with an ulterior motive. Benzodiazepines are claimed to be neurotoxic by some, amphetamines by others, but there's no real evidence to back up the claims and decades of theraputic use to refute them. You need to obtain a baseline reference for an individual, administer a drug and then assess for long term damage to get good data. As I'm sure you well know, drugs sold on the street are rarely what they are advertised to be, so in reality you have no idea what the individuals in the aforementioned paper actually took. Certainly one cannot definitively claim a substance is neurotoxic based on such limited data.
You always get the odd, dubious study popping up from time to time with any drug, no doubt from individuals with an ulterior motive. Benzodiazepines are claimed to be neurotoxic by some, amphetamines by others, but there's no real evidence to back up the claims and decades of theraputic use to refute them. You need to obtain a baseline reference for an individual, administer a drug and then assess for long term damage to get good data. As I'm sure you well know, drugs sold on the street are rarely what they are advertised to be, so in reality you have no idea what the individuals in the aforementioned paper actually took. Certainly one cannot definitively claim a substance is neurotoxic based on such limited data.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
The counterintuitive thing is that you can safely put your hand inside a tub of liquid nitrogen.
I still can't figure out how the liquid nitrogen managed to stay liquid in the cocktail and in her mouth and down her throat. It just doesn't make sense, unless it was encapsulated by something colder than -190 degrees... which can't be the case.
