Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Hot Coffee, a Thread About McDonalds and Its Hot Coffee

11011121315

Posts

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    I see this thread is still failing high school thermodynamics.

  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I see this thread is still failing high school thermodynamics.

    But it does offer more proof of conservation of stupidity and ignoramudynamics.

    steam_sig.png
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    Calixtus wrote: »
    Aside from that, as has been previously noted several pages back, in the circumstances in which the spill occured, she'd have gotten full thickness burns with pretty much any recommended serving temperature, so I don't know why people are latching on to the idea that the coffee was too hot in the first place.

    This has been proven wrong multiple times.

    It has? Because I'm pretty sure the findings of the Bogle case, here, said exactly that. That's a whole big long ruling, so I've pulled the pertinent sentence out for you:
    The evidence is that tea or coffee served at a temperature of 65 C will cause a deep thickness burn if it is in contact with the skin for just two seconds.

    65 C is 149 F by the way.

    And your own link says this would cause a "deep thickness burn." That's not a recognized burn descriptor in any of the med classes I've taken, but some googling seems to indicate it's synonymous with partial thickness burns, or 2nd degree burns, which are distinctly different from full thickness burns, or 3rd degree burns.

    So, thank you for proving me right.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited July 2011

    Similarly a hot cup of coffee could be made somewhat less dangerous by super insulating the cup and reducing the temperature so it still reaches its destination hot. But that doesn't make the hotter cup of coffee defective. Incidentally since we're discussing cooler coffee again 149 degree coffee still causes third degree burns.
    I think you're failing to understand how thermochemistry works, which is probably where all of your misunderstanding is coming from. An insulator closes a system (the coffee) from the universe and prevents heat flow, causing the heat exchange rate to decrease rapidly. This means that insulators would keep the coffee at scalding temperatures even longer. Thus, if there was a spill at any time, it would be from scalding coffee.

    I think you also don't understand what the function of an object is. There is a whole complex set of rules and regulations for items that we ingest into our body. We don't allow pharmaceutical makers to produce poor or unsafe batches of drugs because the sole function of a drug is to be ingested and have a physiological effect. The same goes for any item that is ingested into our body. This includes scalding coffee.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I see this thread is still failing high school thermodynamics.
    It is really embarrassing.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I see this thread is still failing high school thermodynamics.
    It is really embarrassing.
    Well you cannot lose energy and matter cannot be made nor destroyed, right? So from that I conclude that the heat of the coffee in the McDonald's cup is transferred directly to my tongue and the tastebuds that get destroyed aren't REALLY destroyed, they just detach from my tongue and I swallow them along with the coffee and then eventually it becomes fertilizer which may or may not one day grow into a sunflower.

    steam_sig.png
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    And FWIW, Schrodinger, specific molar heat is controlled for either constant volume or constant pressure, so while you are on the right path (somewhat), the ratio of heat loss is the same for all volumes of a substance.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    I am not even sure who is arguing what here, because so many people are slinging around incorrect definitions of thermodynamic principles and assuming a whole slew of things that are not true about different materials including skin.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    In any case, the coffee is indeed advanced by its temperature; it reaches its destination in drinkable fashion. There being an alternative that would also cause this does not make it untrue.
    It does, however, make in unnecessarily dangerous.

    You know, a flaw. A defect, even.
    And a company is not required to perform the safest action possible regardless of cost.
    Certainly not regardless of cost. A slightly thicker cup isn't going to sink them though. So if they'd rather not bother with providing a safer product, they'll have to accept the occasional lawsuit/settlement.

    PSN: allenquid
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    I see this thread is still failing high school thermodynamics.
    It is really embarrassing.

    The source that he cited says that the damage caused by temperature will increase exponentially from an increase in temperature, yet he wants to play off the difference between 150 degrees and 185 degrees as no big deal because 150 degree can still result in burns.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    You made a factual statement that was wrong: "Properly brewed coffee gives 3rd degree burns in a few seconds if you spill it all over yourself."

    What is the justification of the statement? There isn't one.
    My guess is that you are just sniping from the trees at this point, no longer interested in fruitful discourse, but only in seeding confusion and wasted time. Why? Because the items that you claim have never been presented or justified, have in fact been very clearly presented and justified, in many ways, many times.

    But I'll assume good faith, and go over it for you again. Before I start, I want to make sure we're clear on a few things.

    First of all, we haven't really been talking about the temperature at which McDonald's served coffee. We know at what temperature it was held. As your thermodynamic arguments have pointed out, just the act of pouring it from the pot into the cup would cool it significantly, and it would cool every second from there. It is safe to assume that the coffee was cooler than any brewing or holding temperature.

    As it turns out, an AP article in the Denver Post (August 19, 1994) indicated that Liebeck's attorneys estimated that the coffee was 165 - 170F when she spilled it. Based on coffee cooling coefficient studies, and assuming this happened just one or two minutes after serving, this means that the serving temperature would be only very slightly higher than this, about 172F at the most. Incidentally, one of the sample studies I looked at was Starbucks coffee, and 172F was the temperature they started with, too.

    So Liebeck was served coffee 167 - 172F at most, based on her side's own testimony.

    Secondly, serious burns of any sort from MD's coffee were exceedingly rare, 1 burn for 24 million cups served. Liebeck was in a bucket seat, with the cup right between her legs (so it wasn't a small amount flying through the cool air like in most spills; rather it was a lot of it, transferred directly to her crotch), wearing absorbent sweatpants (holding a relatively large amount directly on her skin), and due to her age she was unable to react normally, and basically sat in it in pain until the damage was done. Also due to her age, she had particularly thin, fragile skin. For all of these reasons, the coffee could have been 150 - 160, or even cooler, and still could have caused 3rd degree burns.

    In fact:
    The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: “The relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns” published in (1947) 23 American Journal of Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn [3rd degree] is 257 seconds. At 55 C the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full thickness burn is exponential.
    So yea for science, which actually says that 130F will burn you in 11 seconds, and 149F in 2 seconds. Now, I know that the coffee cools while it melts the skin off of your junk, but it is still safe to say that coffee at 150, or even less, in a situation where it's held on the skin for several seconds, could cause serious 3rd degree burns.

    The math is pretty simple here. I don't know how fast coffee cools while it is charring your bits. But some basic math there says that even if it cools 20 degrees F in 6 seconds, you're still going to get a 3rd degree burn from 150F in 6 seconds. Remember, this woman basically sat in it until it cooled to a resting temperature. Even at 150, there's a good chance some deep tissue burning would have occurred. Not surprising, considering the coffee was 165-170 when it did what it did.

    Now, on to brewing/serving:
    Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.

    Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!

    Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
    A second requirement of water for good coffee brewing is the water temperature as it passes over the coffee grounds. Ideal brewing temperature is 200°F, plus or minus 5°F (at sea level). Subtract 2°F for every 1,000 feet of elevation. Too low a temperature causes flavor compounds not to dissolve resulting in an under extracted weak beverage. Too high a temperature will cause flavor changes resulting in an over-extracted bitter and astringent beverage. By maintaining the proper temperature throughout the brew cycle, optimum extraction can be attained.

    Serve coffee as soon after brewing as possible. Coffee loses flavor and aroma quickly. If brewed coffee must be "held" on a direct heat source, it should be held at 185°F, and for no longer than 20 minutes. Higher temperatures cause coffee to break down quickly, producing a bitter and flat taste. Lower temperatures make the brew too cold and consumers will be dissatisfied. Reheating brewed coffee breaks down the components of the coffee and results in an undesirable flavor.
    Ideal holding temperature: 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC)
    Most all the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points well below that of water and continue to evaporate from the surface until pressure in the serving container reaches equilibrium. A closed container can slow the process of evaporation.
    Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures.
    Again, remember thermodynamics. Pouring the coffee from the holding container to the cup will cool it significantly.
    METHODS: 225 consumers tasted black coffees at six different temperatures (see below), ranking them for preference. The lowest temperature was below the pain threshold, the next below the epithelial damage threshold, the next two above. The two highest temperatures approximated to coffees served commercially. The 225 consumers also served themselves coffees from commercial servers at the six different temperatures (see below), ranking them in terms of expected serving temperatures in coffee shops. Time from serving to drinking was observed for 110 consumers of black coffee in five coffee shops. Temperatures and cooling rates were measured to allow estimates of their drinking temperatures.

    RESULTS: The rank order of preference for temperatures was 160°F (71.1°C) = 140°F (60.0°C) > 170°F (76.7°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). The degree of difference between these values, given by significant R-indices (p 140°F (60.0°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). Corresponding significant R-indices (p<0.05) were: 55.64% (NS), 68.43%, 88.06%, 68.15%, and 81.62%. Coffee shop serving temperatures ranged 168-187°F (75.6-86.1°C). Observed time from serving to drinking ranged: 2-1005 sec, (median 114 sec). The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F (75.6°C) (S.D. 9.01°F).

    SIGNIFICANCE: Ranking indicated preferred drinking temperatures to be generally below expected serving temperatures. In coffee shops, during the delay between serving and drinking, coffee cooled to be closer to desired temperatures.
    So, yeah, the conclusion says that people prefer coffee below normal serving temperatures. It also says that the average time people wait between serving and drinking accounts for this difference, meaning that the serving temperatures were appropriate. Note the specific results: the favorite temps are 160 and 140, followed by 170, 120, 180, and then 100. Coffee was served between 168 and 187F, and the average favorite drinking temp was 168.1. Average, mind you, and after a median pause of 114 seconds between serving and drinking. Pretty much all of these temperature (except maybe the 120 and 100) can cause pain and burns. Numerous factors will determine how painful and how severe of a burn.

    Even if you wanted to do no better than average, meaning nearly half your customers will likely think it's too cold, you'd need to serve coffee at a temperature that targets a 168F drinking temp 2 minutes after serving. This would be somewhere in the low 170s for serving, meaning high 170s for holding. Regardless, even that 168F number is way above "3rd degree burns in 2 seconds."
    The "brewing temperature" is the temperature at which water and coffee grounds blend together to make coffee. Unless water is heated to the proper temperature, the flavor will not be extracted from the coffee grounds. The optimal temperature for brewing coffee is between 195 and 205 degrees Fahrenheit. The coffee industry recommends brewing coffee within this temperature range, and brewing temperatures between 195 [degrees] and 205 [degrees] are standard in commercial coffee equipment.

    The "holding temperature" is the temperature at which the coffee is maintained after brewing. Coffee should be held at a temperature between 175 and 185 degrees for maximum flavor. The standard holding temperature in the industry is within the same temperature range. Most home coffee makers hold coffee between 170 and 190 degrees.

    About one month prior to Mrs. Holowaty's accident, McDonald's reduced its brewing temperature from 195-205 degrees to 185-195 degrees. The coffee loses about 10 degrees during the brewing cycle. Thus, the resulting holding temperature at McDonald's restaurants is between 175 and 185 degrees.

    The only evidence in the record as to the temperature of the coffee served to plaintiffs is the testimony of the manager of the McDonald's restaurant where plaintiffs purchased the coffee. At the time of the accident, it was the manager's practice to set the brewing temperature at 190 degrees. The corresponding holding temperature would have been approximately 180 degrees. These temperatures are consistent with the temperatures McDonald's required of its franchisees at the time of the accident.

    McDonalds standard practice produces coffee slightly lower in temperature than is typical in the commercial setting and within the range of holding temperatures found in most home coffee makers.

    Plaintiffs have also failed to show that a reasonable restaurant owner would have sold coffee at a lower temperature. Plaintiffs rely on their expert, Kenneth Diller, in an attempt to show that a reasonable restaurant owner would have sold the coffee between 135 and 150 degrees. In his report, Diller opines that it is "unreasonable" to sell hot beverages at 180 degrees because there is less risk of injury if beverages are sold between 135 and 150 degrees.

    Diller does not have expertise in coffee brewing and cannot offer any opinion about the possibility of brewing and holding coffee at the temperatures he recommends. Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury, the knives are "safer" because they lack a quality that is an inherent feature of a steak knife -- a sharp edge.
    Hey, look at that, McD's has a history of lowering temperatures to prevent injury, and accidents still cause third degree burns anway. And again, causing injury isn't what makes something defective.
    The industry's standard serving temperature is 160 to 185 degrees.
    Can this statement be disproved? Very easily.

    When you present an absolute statement and someone responds with a counter example, that isn't a strawman. That's an example of why your absolute statement is factually incorrect.

    Basically, you're relying on a "no true cup of coffee" fallacy, and then whining "strawman" when someone points to cups of coffee that don't fit your assertion.

    You said that coffee needs to be served at 185 degrees to be proper. This is untrue.

    If coffee does not need to be served at 185 degrees to be proper, then why was McDonalds serving it at such a high temp? You can claim that other people serve it at that temperature, but that's an appeal to popularity. You need to provide an actual reason.
    No, the argument was never that it must be precisely 185 to be proper, or that anything cooler would be defective. The argument was that the holding and serving temperatures were, nevertheless, in fact, proper. 185 is not defective. This does not mean that "not 185" is defective. It means 185 is not defective.

    As you pointed out, coffee can even be served over ice. This does not make hot coffee defective. On average, people prefer it at 168.1F, right smack in the middle of the 165-170 range that burned Liebeck.
    What he said was "Properly brewed coffee gives 3rd degree burns."
    This has been demonstrated and upheld, repeatedly. Hot food and beverages can cause burns. In extremely rare occurrences, they can cause bad burns.
    And your own link says this would cause a "deep thickness burn." That's not a recognized burn descriptor in any of the med classes I've taken, but some googling seems to indicate it's synonymous with partial thickness burns, or 2nd degree burns, which are distinctly different from full thickness burns, or 3rd degree burns.

    So, thank you for proving me right.
    Are you serious with this? Come on. Deep thickness means partial thickness? Your googling indicated no such thing. Regardless, as I showed above, the actual citation called them "full thickness burns," which should leave no question. The study and data are regarding 3rd degree burns.

    Hey, I'd like to try to end this thermodynamics tangent. As I see it, ultimately the question we're getting at is this: how likely are you to get burned by coffee served at X degrees? We can argue thermodynamics, we can try to model exactly what happens to skin at particular temperatures among the nearly infinite variables, but the fact is that we already have the answer: McDonald's coffee, held at 180 - 190, and served at some temperature less than that, will cause serious burns about once in every 24 million times it is served. If you buy a cup of McDonald's coffee, you can expect a 1 in 24MM chance of getting a serious burn.

    Doesn't that get to the heart of it right there? McDonald's coffee causes serious burns 0.000004% of the time, and doesn't 99.999996% of the time. They have to serve 24,000,000 cups to expect one burn. Around 98% of the McDonald's franchises worldwide, about 29,300 of them, serving coffee everyday at their standard temperatures over the course of at least 10 years, have never burned anyone. And about 2% have burned someone once, typically in a freak set of circumstances. So the question is: is that reasonably cool coffee, or not? Everyone refuses to stand tall and demand that McDonald's make the chance of burns zero, so then what chance of burning is acceptable? 1 in 25 million? One in a billion? How would anyone but McDonalds (or maybe Starbucks) even know if they had reached such a safe temperature, since few others can expect to ever sell that many cups?

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Anecdotally, last time I got a coffee at McD's, they asked me how many cream and sugars so they could do it for me before I got to the window.

    Also, it was undrinkably hot for at least 30m, if not longer. Say what you will about "industry standards", I've never been handed a cup of coffee that fucking hot.

    I felt it was important to throw that in here.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Yar wrote: »
    You made a factual statement that was wrong: "Properly brewed coffee gives 3rd degree burns in a few seconds if you spill it all over yourself."

    What is the justification of the statement? There isn't one.
    My guess is that you are just sniping from the trees at this point, no longer interested in fruitful discourse, but only in seeding confusion and wasted time. Why? Because the items that you claim have never been presented or justified, have in fact been very clearly presented and justified, in many ways, many times.

    The guy claimed that "Properly brewed coffee gives 3rd degree burns in a few seconds if you spill it all over yourself."

    By the rule of X -> Y, Not Y -> Not X, this means "Any cup that doesn't give you 3qd degree burns in seconds is improperly brewed." This assertion is very easily disproved with even a single counter example, iced coffee being the most obvious.
    As it turns out, an AP article in the Denver Post (August 19, 1994) indicated that Liebeck's attorneys estimated that the coffee was 165 - 170F when she spilled it.

    Yes, and if the coffee had started at a cooler temperature, it would have been cooler still.
    Secondly, serious burns of any sort from MD's coffee were exceedingly rare, 1 burn for 24 million cups served.

    Burns aren't all or nothing, where you either melt off 6% of your flesh or you're perfectly fine. For every person who needs to go to the hospital, there are many more people who receive less serious burns that don't go reported. Those people with less serious burns would benefit further by better safety measures.
    The classic paper in this field is Moritz and Henriques: “The relative importance of time and surface temperature in the causation of cutaneous burns” published in (1947) 23 American Journal of Pathology 695-720. This research shows that the minimum temperature at which skin burns is 44 degrees Celsius. At 50 C the duration of exposure required for a full thickness burn [3rd degree] is 257 seconds. At 55 C the duration for such a burn is 11 seconds. At 65 C the duration required is just 2 seconds. The relationship between the surface temperature of the skin and the exposure time required for a full thickness burn is exponential.

    We already address this excerpt. Among other things, Bionic Monkey pointed out that the article is actually describing second degree burns, not third degree burns.
    The math is pretty simple here. I don't know how fast coffee cools while it is charring your bits. But some basic math there says that even if it cools 20 degrees F in 6 seconds, you're still going to get a 3rd degree burn from 150F in 6 seconds.

    If that was the case, then why don't more people get second or third degree burns from 130-150 degree coffee in their mouth/throat, where it resides in your mouth for several seconds at a time?
    Ideal serving temperature: 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC)Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150ºF (65ºC). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures.
    [/quote]

    First off, McDonalds coffee isn't really known for subtle, nuanced gourmet flavors that are only detectable to sophisticated consumers. Second, any volatile aromatics will be lost when you heat up the coffee for long periods of time, rendering this entire point meaningless. It's like finding an article saying that a souffle needs to be served warmed, and then concluding that you should keep it warmed in your oven for several hours on end.
    RESULTS: The rank order of preference for temperatures was 160°F (71.1°C) = 140°F (60.0°C) > 170°F (76.7°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). The degree of difference between these values, given by significant R-indices (p 140°F (60.0°C) > 120°F (48.9°C) > 180°F (82.2°C) > 100°F (37.8°C). Corresponding significant R-indices (p<0.05) were: 55.64% (NS), 68.43%, 88.06%, 68.15%, and 81.62%. Coffee shop serving temperatures ranged 168-187°F (75.6-86.1°C). Observed time from serving to drinking ranged: 2-1005 sec, (median 114 sec). The average estimated drinking temperature was 168.1°F (75.6°C) (S.D. 9.01°F).

    Are these results for fresh coffee, or for burnt coffee? Because there's a huge difference, even at the same temperature.

    I can cite studies showing that people like their guacamole to be a nice green color. That does not mean that Kraft partially hydrogenated 98% Avocado Free Guacamole is a good product for using green dye.
    The "holding temperature" is the temperature at which the coffee is maintained after brewing. Coffee should be held at a temperature between 175 and 185 degrees for maximum flavor.

    For how long?
    Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury,

    Dude, we've already addressed this. This analogy is the complete opposite of true.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    If that was the case, then why don't more people get second or third degree burns from 130-150 degree coffee in their mouth/throat, where it resides in your mouth for several seconds at a time?

    I know you enjoy appealing to thermodynamics and then completely misrepresenting thermodynamics.

    But dammit, man, there's at least one thing you ought to understand because you keep referencing it.

    The point of drinking christ-this-will-burn-your-balls-off-if-you-pour-a-cup-onto-your-balls hot coffee is that you sip a little bit at a time.

    Such a small amount that the heat instantly and harmlessly dissipates in your mouth.

    Whereas an entire large cup takes much, much longer to appreciably lose temperature when applied to your skin.

  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    So, scientifically, what constitutes a "burn"?

    Is it just a measure of the total transfer of energy from an object at one temperature to another? Or is it the rate at which the hot object transfers heat to the cooler object?

    parabol
    nin_new2.gif
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    Scientifically? A burn consists of the amount of damage done to the skin.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    But how is that damage correlated to heat transfer? I know it's a material property of the skin (at least to assess damage), but what is the "thermodynamic link" so to speak? I only ask because

    a) I didn't read this entire thread
    b) My heat transfer is a bit rusty

    parabol
    nin_new2.gif
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    I know you enjoy appealing to thermodynamics and then completely misrepresenting thermodynamics.

    But dammit, man, there's at least one thing you ought to understand because you keep referencing it.

    The point of drinking christ-this-will-burn-your-balls-off-if-you-pour-a-cup-onto-your-balls hot coffee is that you sip a little bit at a time.

    Such a small amount that the heat instantly and harmlessly dissipates in your mouth.

    You realize that the exact same principle explains why most people don't need skin grafts when they're exposed to 150 coffee, right?

    That's kind of the point that we've been making. The numbers being cited are only looking into temperature, without looking at volume. This is highly misleading. We don't have any examples of 150 degree coffee resulting in skin grafts. But we do know that Stella's coffee resulted in skin grafts, because we saw them.

    So basically you have one side on this thread ignoring the role of volume, and then insisting that temperature doesn't create a big difference. But once you do account for volume, suddenly temperature becomes a lot more important.

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Demerdar wrote: »
    But how is that damage correlated to heat transfer? I know it's a material property of the skin (at least to assess damage), but what is the "thermodynamic link" so to speak? I only ask because

    a) I didn't read this entire thread
    b) My heat transfer is a bit rusty

    The damage to skin is caused by proteins in the skin denaturing in response to heat and then underlying cell walls and connections between cells then dissolving. In order for this to happen a certain temperature has to be reached in the skin the proteins are in. Transferring that energy into the skin is where the thermodynamics discussion has been so far.

    It is much more complicated then that, but it is essentially a chemical process which will begin once a specific temperature is exceeded. The further past that temperature the skin gets the faster the breakdown of the skin occur.

    Also each layer of skin has different compositions, as do muscle and fat under the skin, so they have different temperatures at which they start breaking down.

    He's a superhumanly strong soccer-playing romance novelist possessed of the uncanny powers of an insect. She's a beautiful African-American doctor with her own daytime radio talk show. They fight crime!
  • ShutdownShutdown Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    They were parked, in the parking lot.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    It more bothers me that serious burns occur in 1 of 24 million cases of drinking McDonald's coffee.

    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

    What did Liebeck do that you think is so stupid as to be as statistically unexpected as 1 in 24 million?

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2011
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    They were pulled over and stopped.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    It more bothers me that serious burns occur in 1 of 24 million cases of drinking McDonald's coffee.

    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

    I'm suddenly reminded of Feynman investigating the shuttle crash and being told by everyone that it was a one-in-a-million fluke, and then running his own experiments and discovering that it was anything but.

    Stella is an extreme case example of the damages that can be done at McDonalds. She is news worthy because she's an extreme example. However, that does not mean that the slightly less extreme examples that we never hear about aren't worrisome.

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    It more bothers me that serious burns occur in 1 of 24 million cases of drinking McDonald's coffee.

    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

    [citation needed]

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    If that was the case, then why don't more people get second or third degree burns from 130-150 degree coffee in their mouth/throat, where it resides in your mouth for several seconds at a time?

    I know you enjoy appealing to thermodynamics and then completely misrepresenting thermodynamics.

    But dammit, man, there's at least one thing you ought to understand because you keep referencing it.

    The point of drinking christ-this-will-burn-your-balls-off-if-you-pour-a-cup-onto-your-balls hot coffee is that you sip a little bit at a time.

    Such a small amount that the heat instantly and harmlessly dissipates in your mouth.

    Whereas an entire large cup takes much, much longer to appreciably lose temperature when applied to your skin.

    It does dissipate ... at certain temperatures.

    At other temperatures, it will burn, say, your tongue long before this happens.

    Even small volumes can be essentially undrinkable at high enough temperatures. That's what "too hot" generally means.

  • DemerdarDemerdar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    What it ends up being, how hot is too hot when considering the volume of liquid in question, such that it will have sufficient time to transfer that energy to the skin (thus raising the skin temperature) without transfering all of its energy in that time span (this is where volume comes in).


    All of this is a pretty complicated transient convection/conduction problem, but I can see why this bitch got burned having a cup of 160 degree coffee in her lap (where the skin is much more sensitive).

    parabol
    nin_new2.gif
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    kedinik wrote: »
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    It more bothers me that serious burns occur in 1 of 24 million cases of drinking McDonald's coffee.

    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

    Someone else thought like you. We almost pierced the corporate veil because of it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    We already address this excerpt. Among other things, Bionic Monkey pointed out that the article is actually describing second degree burns, not third degree burns.
    BM was wrong, and likely disingenuous to boot. It was about third-degree burns.
    If that was the case, then why don't more people get second or third degree burns from 130-150 degree coffee in their mouth/throat, where it resides in your mouth for several seconds at a time?
    First of all, do you even know how many people do or don't get such burns? Mouth burns from all sorts of hot foods and beverages do occur.

    But the mouth is lined with oral mucosa, a protective lining over deep tissue, which is even keratinized (like fingernails) in many places. Thus the mouth is significantly more resistant to pain, injury, and burns. That's why often a bite of hot food will feel fine in your mouth, but hurt like hell if some drops out onto the exterior of your lips, where there isn't a thick slimy protective lining. And, coffee is sipped, where tiny amounts are drawn up with a considerable mixtrue of rapidly moving air (the reverberating sucking thing we do).
    First off, McDonalds coffee isn't really known for subtle, nuanced gourmet flavors that are only detectable to sophisticated consumers.
    Neither is Bunn-o-matic. But coffee is coffee. Having a nice marketing department doesn't change much about the process of ground beans + hot water. And I don't see your point anyway. Their consumers aren't characterized as gourmands, so therefore McD's shouldn't care about taste quality?
    I can cite studies showing that people like their guacamole to be a nice green color. That does not mean that Kraft partially hydrogenated 98% Avocado Free Guacamole is a good product for using green dye.
    You're making discussion difficult. People like coffee at a certain temperature, and temperature is temperature. Green dye is not analogous at all. There are better, more standard, more preferred, and more recommended ways to make guacamole green than just using green dye. There isn't a better way to make coffee hot than to make it hot. I'm sure you are capable of reasoning this on your own, so you shouldn't waste time making me do it, unless you are just in this thread to waste time.
    For how long?
    I've never understood this point. As best as I can tell, you're saying that since some of the sources also reference a recommended max holding time, and since you're assuming (without any evidence or justification whatsoever) that McD's doesn't follow the holding time recommendations, therefore you believe they also shouldn't follow holding temperature recommendations. Every part of that is irrational; correct me where I misstated it.
    Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury,

    Dude, we've already addressed this. This analogy is the complete opposite of true.
    No, it isn't. The analogy is pretty fitting. The only challenge was that "knives aren't mean to be consumed." Well, coffee isn't meant to be poured on your jayjay.
    Doc wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    And then people can somehow think McDonald's is systematically creating a dangerous product, and not that 1 in 24 million people were exceptionally stupid with their coffee.

    What did Liebeck do that you think is so stupid as to be as statistically unexpected as 1 in 24 million?
    I think calling her exceptionally stupid is unnecessarily blaming the victim. Rather, she was somewhat stupid, significantly vulnerable, and exceptionally unlucky. Accidents happen. The tort system is not an accident insurance program funded by corporations. At least, that isn't what lawakers intend it to be, I don't think.
    Stella is an extreme case example of the damages that can be done at McDonalds. She is news worthy because she's an extreme example. However, that does not mean that the slightly less extreme examples that we never hear about aren't worrisome.
    Like, the hypothetical less extreme example that we would have had if Liebeck's coffee had been a few degrees cooler? "Worrisome," you say? So... then, what again is the goal here? What should McDonald's have done? You're arguing against your own logic, now.
    [citation needed]
    Please read any one of the many posts in this thread, or the last two or three threads we had on this, where the numbers of coffee burns at McD's are cited from the case. One of the reasons the jury found for her is because an expert used very unforunate word choice in explaining how exceedingly rare coffee burns are (1 in 24 million cups served over about 10 years), and it came across as acting like Liebeck's severe burns weren't even something anyone should acknowledge or care about. He meant to say the exact opposite, that her burns were terrible, yet something so extremely rare that it is unlikely to say for sure what, if any, reasonable steps could be taken to prevent such a thing. He used the word "trivial" too much in explaining it, intending to explain why the incidence of severe burns were statisically equivalent to zero, but coming across rather as saying that her injury was minor and she was a crybaby.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Yar wrote: »
    But the mouth is lined with oral mucosa, a protective lining over deep tissue, which is even keratinized (like fingernails) in many places. Thus the mouth is significantly more resistant to pain, injury, and burns. That's why often a bite of hot food will feel fine in your mouth, but hurt like hell if some drops out onto the exterior of your lips, where there isn't a thick slimy protective lining. And, coffee is sipped, where tiny amounts are drawn up with a considerable mixtrue of rapidly moving air (the reverberating sucking thing we do).

    So volume matters too, not just temperature. The studies that you were citing relied primarily on temperature.
    First off, McDonalds coffee isn't really known for subtle, nuanced gourmet flavors that are only detectable to sophisticated consumers.
    Neither is Bunn-o-matic. But coffee is coffee. Having a nice marketing department doesn't change much about the process of ground beans + hot water. And I don't see your point anyway. Their consumers aren't characterized as gourmands, so therefore McD's shouldn't care about taste quality?

    Saying that McDonalds needs to burn their coffee in order to main their subtle flavors is like saying that Kraft needs to add green food dye to their partially hydrogenated paste in order to maintain a natural green color.
    You're making discussion difficult. People like coffee at a certain temperature, and temperature is temperature.

    People like their coffee at a certain temperature because it implies freshness. If the product isn't fresh, but burnt, then maintaining coffee at that temperature is actually counter productive.
    I've never understood this point. As best as I can tell, you're saying that since some of the sources also reference a recommended max holding time, and since you're assuming (without any evidence or justification whatsoever) that McD's doesn't follow the holding time recommendations, therefore you believe they also shouldn't follow holding temperature recommendations.

    Yeah, I'm sure that McDonalds changes their drip coffee every half hour and grind their coffee fresh for every batch, the same way that Starbucks does. That's why I hear the alarms going off at McDonalds every 30 minutes, to remind the workers that it's time to dump out the odd coffee and replace it with new coffee, because McDonalds is obsessed with producing a top quality product that none of their customers will care about.
    Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury,

    Dude, we've already addressed this. This analogy is the complete opposite of true.
    No, it isn't. The analogy is pretty fitting.

    I want you to cite one page on knife safety that says that instructs people to dull their knives as much as possible. Because unless you're talking about plastic knives, I'm guessing that any page you find will say the exact opposite of what you're claiming it will.
    I think calling her exceptionally stupid is unnecessarily blaming the victim. Rather, she was somewhat stupid, significantly vulnerable, and exceptionally unlucky. Accidents happen.

    Right, but if a car maker finds a defect that causes the airbags to malfunction and chooses not to fix it, he can still be sued. Even if he wasn't the one who caused the fatal accident.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Yar wrote: »
    Diller's testimony is tantamount to saying that it is safer to make steak knives that have dull edges. While it is true that dull steak knives are less likely to cause injury,

    Dude, we've already addressed this. This analogy is the complete opposite of true.
    No, it isn't. The analogy is pretty fitting. The only challenge was that "knives aren't mean to be consumed." Well, coffee isn't meant to be poured on your jayjay.

    People have been pointing out that this analogy is flawed because dull knives are dangerous. They've been saying this from day one.
    It sounds completely counterintuitive that a razor-sharp knife would actually cause fewer injuries in the kitchen, doesn't it? An interview with a butcher in a recent Gourmet Live article reveals how this is so.

    Stanley Lobel of Lobel's butcher shop in New York explains that a sharp knife means you have to make fewer cuts. A dull knife makes you work harder; several cuts are required where one or two would do.

    It's really a simple law of averages: fewer cuts means fewer chances of cutting yourself over the long run. More cuts, and the risk goes up. A sharp knife will also cut more cleanly and precisely than a dull knife, and with much less chance of slippage.
    A dull knife won’t do its work. And what is more, it is dangerous. More fingers are cut by dull knives than by sharp knives. A sharp knife bites into the wood while a dull one tends to slip off. A camper should always carry a little sharpening stone in his pocket along with his knife. The knife and the stone are partners and where one is the other should be also. Such stones are called whetstones or carborundum stones. One measuring 3/4 of an inch by 3 inches is large enough and is a handy size to carry. A whetstone using water is more practical in camp than one that requires oil, for water is always at hand, but there never seems to be any oil when it is needed. Whetstones are made to provide a grinding surface, and come in varying degrees of coarseness. Coarse stones are used for heavy tools, like axes; fine stones for knives or for finishing the edge.
    And if you keep your knife sharp, minimum force will be required. Remember, when you start forcing knives around, bad things happen.

    So basically, your entire argument rests on two assumptions:

    1) Burnt coffee tastes better than unburnt coffee.
    2) Dull knives are safer than sharp knives.

    Neither of these assumptions is even remotely true.

  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    It will be freshly roasted and shipped directly to stores, hand-scooped, freshly ground and brewed in small batches. Baristas have been told to throw out any brew that hasn’t been served within 30 minutes.

    “We’ll be pouring out more coffee than most people serve,” Schultz said.
    Now, depending on how busy a store is at a particular time, baristas will use 24-, 12- or eight-minute "cadences" to brew coffee so that no variety runs out. And instead of dedicating one coffee brewer per variety, the new procedures require that containers be rotated as necessary through different varieties so customers don't have to wait for a certain type to brew.

    Some baristas said the extra grinding and brewing might slow service and turn off customers with added noise.

    But demonstrating to customers that coffee is ground and brewed on the spot could help Starbucks maintain its premium position, especially as rivals tout less-expensive alternatives.
    Starbucks does tend to roast their beans darker than most, more closely resembling a an Italian/French style roast, which is darker than a Vienna roast which is again darker than the average 'City Roast'. Is this burnt coffee? No, burnt coffee is coffee that's been left on a heating element for over 30 minutes. You know, the coffee that's in the urn on the 'warming' pad at most deli's or at the 7-eleven. That's burnt. All you taste is the harsh bitterness left because all the rich coffee oils have been evaporated away (which is what gives fresh coffee it's richer flavor).

    Sorry, but if you're going to hide behind "McDonalds serves coffee that hot because they want to serve a quality product," then you need to acknowledge that "quality" involves a lot more than just serving temparature.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    A Needed Distraction from Coffee: The Ford Pinto Case

    One of the more famous tort cases in American history. And, arguably, more misunderstood than even Liebeck's coffee.

    The common myth

    In the '70s, the Ford Motor Company, desperate to introduce a cheap subcompact that could compete with the influx of Japanese cars, negligently designed and sold the worst, most defective, most dangerous automobile ever.

    Pulitzer-winning magazine articles and 60 Minutes deemed it a "firetrap" for it's unusual vulnerability to catching on fire even in minor fender-benders, and reported thousands of needless deaths and many more injuries.

    The morbid icing on the controversy was a document presented in trial, showing that Ford knew it would kill that many people, and went ahead with it anyway. The document showed Ford callously slapping a monetary value on human life (and an absurdly low value at that), and thus determined that it was cheaper to pay off the deceased and injured than it was to spend $11/car to fix their otherwise unacceptably defective and dangerous gas tank design flaw. The document would later be referred to in other trial proceedings as "the most remarkable document ever produced in an American lawsuit."

    Ford was hit with massive punitive damages and ordered to recall and stop producing the Pinto.

    The real story

    The "design defect" of the Pinto was placing the fuel tank behind the rear axle, where it was more vulnerable to rear-end collisions, rather than above the axle. However, this was not unusual, but was actually common among American cars at the time. Compounding the problem were the relatively small crumple zone behind the tank, and several bolts pointing at the tank that would likely pierce it in a rear-end collision.

    While this design had recognizable safety risks, it also had safety benefits as well, such as a reduced risk of gasoline and fire inside the car in a major crash. Also, it was basically impossible to place the gas tank above the axle in a hatchback.

    Overall total fatalities in Ford Pintos in '75 and '76 comes to 620. To compare to it's contemparary competition, the VW Beetle had 748, the Toyota Corolla: 626, the Datsun 510: 634, the Datsun 210: 810, Chevy Vega: 598, and AMC Gremlin: 589.

    Specifically looking at fire-related accidents, the FARS database for '75 - '76 showed that the Pinto comprised 1.9% of all cars on the road in the U.S., and equivalently was involved in 1.9% of all accidents involving fire on roads in the U.S.

    Regarding Pinto's specific problem with the gas tank, throughout all six years '71 - '76, there were 38 Pinto wrecks that specifically involved gas tank combustion, resulting in 27 fatalities. Most articles reported near a thousand, and 60 Minutes suggested 2,000. But the NHSTA reports 27. And this figure assumes that every gas tank fatality was due to the design flaw, when really some gas tank fatalities happen under any design.

    The prosecution against Ford did not dispute any of the NHSTA or FARS data above.

    Although the Pinto was involved in less fatalities than most sub-compacts, and was exactly average among all cars in fire-related accidents, when the FARS data for '75 - '76 was isolated to only rear-end collision, fire-related fatalities (a very small sample size), it was responsible for 4.1% of all such accidents, compared to it's 1.9% representation among all cars. This was higher even than most sub-compacts, though the Gremlin still beat the Pinto by far in rear-end fire fatalities. Of course, Ford knew that there were trade-offs in the design.

    So it was safer than most sub-compacts, and overall no more prone to fire than average for any car. Not surprising, the since the NHSTA had investigated complaints in 1974 and found the Pinto to have no defect that warranted a recall. However, based on a very small sample of rear-end, fire-related fatality collisions over two years, the Pinto was the 2nd worst car on the road for fatalities of that particular nature. Crash tests confirmed that the Pinto was relatively vulnerable in that specific type of crash. Other cars with other design decisions faired similarly (or worse) when looked at under other specific scenarios.

    As for the document... it was ruled inadmissable in the trial. Why? Because it isn't nearly what mythology and the press says it was. It wasn't about the Pinto. It wasn't about the risk of gas tanks behind the axle. It wasn't about a design decision, neither was it about tort, nor about what Ford expected to lose in lawsuits. It wasn't about Ford or Pintos or lawsuits or design defects at all.

    What it was: The NHSTA had proposed some new safety regulations, specifically one regarding requiring certain measures to protect against the dangers of fuel leakage (in any gas tank design) during rollover accidents. They sent these proposals to the industry, as regulatory boards normally do, requesting feedback and comment. In response, Ford prepared an analysis for the NHSTA. It took the total number of vehicles sold in the U.S. in one year (of any make/model/etc, not just Pintos or even just Fords), and multiplied it times the cost of the safety requirement suggested in the proposal. This was their suggested cost of the regulation. They then took the current incidence of deaths and injuries from rollover accidents involving fuel tank leakage, and multiplied that times the NHSTA's own published numbers for the value of human life and human injury. This was the NHSTA value developed by them based on their own psychological studies, for the express purpose of issuing guidance to auto manufacturers on what reasonable safety measures must be implemented. Even then, it was never the intent to use this analysis as the final decision on such matters. The NHSTA's protocol is to consider such things, but also to take into consideration general safety above all else, from a reasoned human perspective, even sometimes if the dollars don't support it. Regardless, the NHSTA did and still does monetize the benefit to human life and injury as one part of the process in deciding whether or not to implement new safety regulations.

    The NHSTA, based on all sorts of analyses and consideration, decided not to implement the regulation at the time. Again, this had nothing to do with tort, or lawsuits, ow with alleged design flaws of the Pinto. Ford simply responded to a request from the NHSTA, regarding a regulatory decision not related to Pintos, and did so according to the NHSTA's own guidance and protocols.

    Anyway, the prosecution didn't even try to submit this document as evidence that Ford was liable. They only submitted it in the discussion of punitive damages, as evidence that Ford's corporate mentality was malicious in general. And the judge would not allow it even on that. Regardless, the media widely reported that a document submitted in court showed that Ford knew the Pinto was unusually dangerous and had calculated how many people it would hurt and kill, and that they decided that it would be cheaper to handle lawsuits instead. Pretty much none of that is true.

    Ford lost one lawsuit, based on the "4.1%" number, and based on the fact that Ford did know ahead of time that the design of the Pinto would lead to a higher proportion of a very particular kind of accident damage, despite the analysis document being ruled inadmissable and the Pinto being shown overall to be relatively safe for a sub-compact, and no more prone to fire than any average car. The judge drastically slashed the damage award, from hundreds of millions to a few million. There was one other similar lawsuit, and Ford won that one, with the jury seeming to find the Pinto to be no more dangerous or safe than any typical car.

    Due to overwhelming negative (and inaccurate) press coverage, they voluntarily recalled the Pinto, offering protective fuel tank covers and some other adjustments, and eventually pretty much couldn't sell it any more. Political pressure rightfully pushed the NHSTA into some tougher regulations and higher dollar figures on the value of human life.

    You be the judge.

    Source: Schwartz, Gary T. The Myth of the Ford Pinto Case, Rutgers Law Review, 1991.

  • ShutdownShutdown Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    Doc wrote: »
    Shutdown wrote: »
    I can never get over the "put it in her lap whilst in a car" thing. At what point was that supposed to be a good idea? Hey, nothing bad like a sudden stop or change-in-direction could happen, not even considering just fumbling the damn thing herself.

    Beverage with the word "Hot" in it + lap + moving vehicle = Really risky. It's not rocket science.

    They were pulled over and stopped.

    Ok, I admit I was wrong on that part. But when you say 'they' it implies there was more than 1 person in the car... again I still wonder why a cup of hot coffee was doing between anyones knees when someone could just hold both with their hands and the other handles the extras.

    I think I'll never get over the 'spilled coffee on yourself' thing, because I think of it like "it's your fault I accidently drank that drain-o even though it was in a clearly labelled bottle"

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    Yar wrote: »
    We already address this excerpt. Among other things, Bionic Monkey pointed out that the article is actually describing second degree burns, not third degree burns.
    BM was wrong, and likely disingenuous to boot. It was about third-degree burns.

    Thanks for that. Love you too.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    You know what Yar, I'm gonna give you a chance before I just flat-out call you a disingenuous goose. Find me a recognized and current medical definition for a "deep thickness burn" or you're just talking out of your ass.

    I'm not a doctor, but I am an EMT, and I have never heard that burn descriptor outside of this thread.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    The only thing I can find Googling it seems to be descriptions of burns that call 2nd Degree Burns "Partial Deep Thickness Burns" and 3rd Degree "Full Deep Thickness Burns" or the like.

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited July 2011
    Yeah, I've only ever heard of them as:

    1st Degree Burns (Superficial)
    2nd Degree Burns (Partial-Thickness)
    3rd Degree Burns (Full-Thickness)

    At least at my level of medical training (which admittedly, is not much), there is no such thing as a "Deep Thickness Burn." Frankly, as medical terminology, "Deep Thickness" barely even makes sense.

    But you know what, I searched for the term anyway, and some googling seems to suggest it's somewhat similar to a Partial-Thickness burn, so I ran with that.

    But apparently, trying to suss out the meaning behind a person's information and arguing in good faith makes me disingenuous.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2011
    If you guys would take a second to just look up a few posts, you'd see that I already correctly pointed out the the citation said "Full thickness" not "deep thickness." Deep thickness appears to be a mis-quote. Either way, you're being ridiculous to assert that "deep" would mean "partial thickness" and not "full thickness." Full thickness means the kind that goes to the deepest layer.

    None of this matters, because the correct quote, as well as the obvious context, make it a total waste of time to even pretend like the study might have been about 2nd degree burns. Cut the crap.

    EDIT: Anyway, I totally find the Pinto case even more fascinating now.

This discussion has been closed.