As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

McDonald's hot coffee case...

145679

Posts

  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    McDonalds should have settled immediately when the old lady was only asking for doctor's fees. They didn't, and that was stupid, and this is what happened.

    Look, when you run a study saying that you know that boiling hot coffee will be spilled on a "statistically insignificant" number of people, resulting in severe burns, then fucking pay them the "statistically insignificant" hospital bills, or lower the temperature of your fucking coffee. If you don't, then you will find that judges try to make sure that "punitive damages" don't fall under the category of "statistically insignificant".

    Thread over now? Doesn't seem like it can get summed up better than this, unless Yar wants to bitch and moan more this not being McD's fault.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • AresProphetAresProphet Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    wmelon wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns.

    I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.

    Well, liquid water can't get hotter than 212F outside of high-pressure conditions, so I hope you mean you got burned by steam. Which is a completely different kind of burn that takes longer to do damage to skin than a liquid burn. If you get 300 degree cooking oil on you, it's going to leave a mark. 300 degree steam will do significantly less damage for the same exposure time.

    AresProphet on
    ex9pxyqoxf6e.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    wmelon wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns.

    I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.

    Well, liquid water can't get hotter than 212F outside of high-pressure conditions,

    Not entirely true. It's possible to superheat water past its boiling point.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    wmelon wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns.

    I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.

    Well, liquid water can't get hotter than 212F outside of high-pressure conditions,

    Not entirely true. It's possible to superheat water past its boiling point.

    Also, can't steam cause worse burns than boiling water? I believe it's called latent heat, and it's the heat released as the steam condenses (on your skin) into water...water that will probably be at or near the boiling point to boot.

    I seem to remember learning something like this in Chem class.

    mcdermott on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    Feral wrote:
    wmelon wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns.

    I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.

    Well, liquid water can't get hotter than 212F outside of high-pressure conditions,

    Not entirely true. It's possible to superheat water past its boiling point.

    Also, can't steam cause worse burns than boiling water? I believe it's called latent heat, and it's the heat released as the steam condenses (on your skin) into water...water that will probably be at or near the boiling point to boot.

    I seem to remember learning something like this in Chem class.

    Everything I've ever read has said that steam burns tend to be more serious than liquid water burns.

    And that's not counting steam inhalation.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • NinjahedgeNinjahedge Registered User new member
    edited November 2006
    man, I leave for two years, come back, and there's still a 15 page McD coffee thread on page one of D&D. See you guys in 2009. And people still haven't learned not to argue with Yarr. Geeze.

    Ninjahedge on
  • GiganticusGiganticus Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I have! I just come here nowadays to comment on various randomosities and play Phalla.

    Giganticus on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Ninjahedge wrote:
    man, I leave for two years, come back, and there's still a 15 page McD coffee thread on page one of D&D. See you guys in 2009. And people still haven't learned not to argue with Yarr. Geeze.

    If we dont set Yarr straight, he is going to really mess up some more impressionable people.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    Ninjahedge wrote:
    man, I leave for two years, come back, and there's still a 15 page McD coffee thread on page one of D&D. See you guys in 2009. And people still haven't learned not to argue with Yarr. Geeze.

    If we dont set Yarr straight, he is going to really mess up some more impressionable people.

    Won't somebody please think of the children?

    Vincent Grayson on
  • wmelonwmelon Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well, liquid water can't get hotter than 212F outside of high-pressure conditions, so I hope you mean you got burned by steam. Which is a completely different kind of burn that takes longer to do damage to skin than a liquid burn. If you get 300 degree cooking oil on you, it's going to leave a mark. 300 degree steam will do significantly less damage for the same exposure time.

    Yes, this was a "high pressure" situation. the water was under around 2 bar of pressure. it was ejected from this container at high speed and i was about 3" from it.

    wmelon on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Saying the pot has 5 minutes of cooling time is highly misleading, as the pot is sitting on heating element while it is being brewed.
    And the water coming out is at the max temp through the entire 5 minutes. At the immediate end of the 5 minutes, the effects of the heating element combined with the constant addition of max-temp water means it can't possibly be cooler than very slightly less than the brewing temperature.
    wmelon wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    One second at 160F will cause 3rd degree burns.

    I would just like to say I can personally attest that this is not true. I was burned by water that was initially at a temperature of 227F. It took well over 1 second to get my clothing off and I only had 1st and 2nd degree burns.
    That temperature is well above boiling. I'm not so sure your readings are accurate.

    [quote=Assoc. of Trial Lawyers of America]It is easy to receive third degree burns from exposure to hot tap water, which comes from not only hot drinks and pots cooking on the stove, but from bath water. An approximate one-second exposure to 160° F water will result in third degree burns. Where the water is 130° F, an approximate half-minute exposure will result in third degree burns. This is the reason that the Consumer Product Safety Commission suggests that water heaters be set to a maximum temperature of 120° F, even though an approximate ten minute expsoure to water heated to this temperature can result in third degree burns.

    A safe temperature for hot water is 110° F, which exposure to results in third degree burns in approximately ten hours. Even though this is a 'relatively-safe' temperature, exposure to water set at 110° F is painful; the human pain threshold is around 106-108° F. It is important to remember that 212° F is the boiling point of water, meaning that the temperatures at which exposure to water will result in burns is much less than the boiling point of water.[/quote]
    Doc wrote:
    My point has always been that I (and the courts, apparently) don't give a shit what temperature is recommended for optimum flavor or brewing or whatever. If it's hot enough to cause permanent damage in a matter of seconds, it's too fucking hot.
    And my point has been there there is no possible temperature at which coffee is not "too fucking hot" by your standards and yet also not "too fucking cold" by the majority of coffee consumers. The two ranges overlap, by a good bit; there is no acceptable middle. You're basically saying that you think coffee should be illegal.

    I again point back to the razor analogy. Does knowing that a razor can cut skin, and is even used in murders and suicides, mean they they are "too fucking sharp?" Or is it naturally assumed that for a razor to be what it is supposed to be, it unfortunately has to be that sharp? This is what I'm trying to show you is also true for coffee. In order for it to be what it is supposed to be, it needs to be served that hot.
    McDonalds should have settled immediately when the old lady was only asking for doctor's fees. They didn't, and that was stupid, and this is what happened.
    Probably. Except every other case where a person received burns by spilling coffee on themselves has gone in favor of the defense. The only thing that was stupid was their lackluster presentation of defense in court.
    If you don't, then you will find that judges try to make sure that "punitive damages" don't fall under the category of "statistically insignificant".
    Actually, you won't. You'll find the exact opposite. Except in this one exception.

    Yar on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    If you don't, then you will find that judges try to make sure that "punitive damages" don't fall under the category of "statistically insignificant".
    Actually, you won't. You'll find the exact opposite. Except in this one exception.

    Except no, that's exactly the fucking point of punitive damages. The fact that they weren't awarded in other cases is a given, since the plaintiff lost the other cases. Punitive damages exist *SOLELY* to punish (hence the name), the entire point is to coerce the corporation in question to change their behavior by changing the economics of the situation at hand.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Except no, that's exactly the fucking point of punitive damages. The fact that they weren't awarded in other cases is a given, since the plaintiff lost the other cases. Punitive damages exist *SOLELY* to punish (hence the name), the entire point is to coerce the corporation in question to change their behavior by changing the economics of the situation at hand.
    No, I get what you were saying. Out of context, it is true. Punitive damages againt corporations are to provide bottom-line impetus to change. I am a big supporter of it. I like tort.

    I was flipping it on you, and trying to point out, though, that in the case of hot coffee burns, including hot coffee burn suits against McD's, judges instead try to make sure that the plaintiff loses. The reasons are usually everything I've said here, including specifically pointing out the the temperature of coffee when served should be, unfortunately, that which casuses 3rd degree burns. There was one exception case: this case.

    Yar on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    Except no, that's exactly the fucking point of punitive damages. The fact that they weren't awarded in other cases is a given, since the plaintiff lost the other cases. Punitive damages exist *SOLELY* to punish (hence the name), the entire point is to coerce the corporation in question to change their behavior by changing the economics of the situation at hand.
    No, I get what you were saying. Out of context, it is true. Punitive damages againt corporations are to provide bottom-line impetus to change. I am a big supporter of it. I like tort.

    I was flipping it on you, and trying to point out, though, that in the case of hot coffee burns, including hot coffee burn suits against McD's, judges instead rule that the plaintiff loses. The reasons are usually everything I've said here, including specifically pointing out the the temperature of coffee when served should be, unfortunately, that which casuses 3rd degree burns. There was one exception case: this case.

    It's an iffy case, but I think it just comes down to what people expect when they buy coffee. Aside from what you guys have dug up in this thread, I'd have never said a reasonable person should expect their coffee to potentially maim them...I guess the jury went the same route. I'd wager it's fairly likely most coffee drinkers don't bother to think about how much damage really hot coffee would do to them if spilled, but perhaps they should be.

    edit: I think it's clear, if nothing else, that the defense fucked up, and that everyone likes old ladies.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I'm trying to read this thread, but the constant use of the Goddamned Fahrenheit scale is making this extremely difficult. Why the fuck do Americans still use that retarded unit? Seriously.

    Azio on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I'd have never said a reasonable person should expect their coffee to potentially maim them...I guess the jury went the same route. I'd wager it's fairly likely most coffee drinkers don't bother to think about how much damage really hot coffee would do to them if spilled, but perhaps they should be.
    That's a good point. One of the central claims in the McMahon case was that the plaintiffs admitted knowing that coffee could burn you, but they assumed it would amount to blisters (2nd degree) and not skin grafts (3rd degree).

    But they still lost, because it was determined that their lack of specific medical knowledge was not Bunn-o-matic's fault.
    edit: I think it's clear, if nothing else, that the defense fucked up, and that everyone likes old ladies.
    Yes, that was my original point in this thread. The juries were *gasp* human beings. They saw a twerp working for a huge $multi-billion company (with all kinds of PR issues) telling them that, statistically, this didn't even really happen. And they saw an old woman saying "it hurrrrrt... I just wanted medical bills" and showing pictures of her poon-tang with the skin melted right off of it.

    Incidentally, it's not even McD's money on the line. They pay a flat rate to an insurance company every year for this stuff. McD's challenged it because that was their basic policy - if we spill it on them or there's defective equipment, pay them. If we do what we're supposed to and they spill it on themselves, no deal. And the insurance company later admitted that they mistakenly ignored what was going on in this case until it was almost over. Had they been involved earlier, they would have ensured (olol) that the case went in a less emotional direction.
    Azio wrote:
    I'm trying to read this thread, but the constant use of the Goddamned Fahrenheit unit is driving me mad. Who the fuck still uses Fahrenheit degrees, honestly.
    The case was tried in an American court, sorry.

    Subtract 32, multiply times 5, divide by 9.

    32F = 0C (Freezing.)

    110F = 43.3C (Maximum considered "safe" for home water use to avoid scalding. Just above the human pain threshhold.)

    140F = 60C (Temperature some have suggested as safe for coffee, causes 3rd degree burns after 10 seconds)

    150F = 65.5C (Lowest end temperature that any industry representative has been found to suggest for serving coffee)

    160F = 71.1C (Causes 3rd degree burns in 1 second)

    170F = 76.7C (Within most industry reps' range of "ideal" serving temperature)

    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    190F = 87.7C (Highest recommended serving or holding temp, lower end of recommended brewing temp)

    210F = 98.9C (Highest recommended brewing temperature)

    212F = 100C (Boiling.)

    Anyway, the Kelvin folks probably think Celsius is stupid.

    Yar on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    I'd have never said a reasonable person should expect their coffee to potentially maim them...I guess the jury went the same route. I'd wager it's fairly likely most coffee drinkers don't bother to think about how much damage really hot coffee would do to them if spilled, but perhaps they should be.
    That's a good point. One of the central claims in the McMahon case was that the plaintiffs admitted knowing that coffee could burn you, but they assumed it would amount to blisters (2nd degree) and not skin grafts (3rd degree).

    But they still lost, because it was determined that their lack of specific medical knowledge was not Bunn-o-matic's fault.
    edit: I think it's clear, if nothing else, that the defense fucked up, and that everyone likes old ladies.
    Yes, that was my original point in this thread. The juries were *gasp* human beings. They saw a twerp working for a huge $multi-billion company (with all kinds of PR issues) telling them that, statistically, this didn't even really happen. And they saw an old woman saying "it hurrrrrt... I just wanted medical bills" and showing pictures of her poon-tang with the skin melted right off of it.

    Incidentally, it's not even McD's money on the line. They pay a flat rate to an insurance company every year for this stuff. McD's challenged it because that was their basic policy - if we spill it on them or there's defective equipment, pay them. If we do what we're supposed to and they spill it on themselves, no deal. And the insurance company later admitted that they mistakenly ignored what was going on in this case until it was almost over. Had they been involved earlier, they would have ensured (olol) that the case went in a less emotional direction.
    Azio wrote:
    I'm trying to read this thread, but the constant use of the Goddamned Fahrenheit unit is driving me mad. Who the fuck still uses Fahrenheit degrees, honestly.
    The case was tried in an American court, sorry.

    Subtract 32, multiply times 5, divide by 9.

    32F = 0C (Freezing.)

    110F = 43.3C (Maximum considered "safe" for home water use to avoid scalding. Just above the human pain threshhold.)

    140F = 60C (Temperature some have suggested as safe for coffee, causes 3rd degree burns after 10 seconds)

    150F = 65.5C (Lowest end temperature that any industry representative has been found to suggest for serving coffee)

    160F = 71.1C (Causes 3rd degree burns in 1 second)

    170F = 76.7C (Within most industry reps' range of "ideal" serving temperature)

    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    190F = 87.7C (Highest recommended serving or holding temp, lower end of recommended brewing temp)

    210F = 98.9C (Highest recommended brewing temperature)

    212F = 100C (Boiling.)

    Anyway, the Kelvin folks probably think Celsius is stupid.

    Farenheit (that spelling looks wrong to me, is it?) always seemed odd to me, even when learning it as a kid.

    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    I'd have never said a reasonable person should expect their coffee to potentially maim them...I guess the jury went the same route. I'd wager it's fairly likely most coffee drinkers don't bother to think about how much damage really hot coffee would do to them if spilled, but perhaps they should be.
    That's a good point. One of the central claims in the McMahon case was that the plaintiffs admitted knowing that coffee could burn you, but they assumed it would amount to blisters (2nd degree) and not skin grafts (3rd degree).

    But they still lost, because it was determined that their lack of specific medical knowledge was not Bunn-o-matic's fault.
    edit: I think it's clear, if nothing else, that the defense fucked up, and that everyone likes old ladies.
    Yes, that was my original point in this thread. The juries were *gasp* human beings. They saw a twerp working for a huge $multi-billion company (with all kinds of PR issues) telling them that, statistically, this didn't even really happen. And they saw an old woman saying "it hurrrrrt... I just wanted medical bills" and showing pictures of her poon-tang with the skin melted right off of it.

    Incidentally, it's not even McD's money on the line. They pay a flat rate to an insurance company every year for this stuff. McD's challenged it because that was their basic policy - if we spill it on them or there's defective equipment, pay them. If we do what we're supposed to and they spill it on themselves, no deal. And the insurance company later admitted that they mistakenly ignored what was going on in this case until it was almost over. Had they been involved earlier, they would have ensured (olol) that the case went in a less emotional direction.
    Azio wrote:
    I'm trying to read this thread, but the constant use of the Goddamned Fahrenheit unit is driving me mad. Who the fuck still uses Fahrenheit degrees, honestly.
    The case was tried in an American court, sorry.

    Subtract 32, multiply times 5, divide by 9.

    32F = 0C (Freezing.)

    110F = 43.3C (Maximum considered "safe" for home water use to avoid scalding. Just above the human pain threshhold.)

    140F = 60C (Temperature some have suggested as safe for coffee, causes 3rd degree burns after 10 seconds)

    150F = 65.5C (Lowest end temperature that any industry representative has been found to suggest for serving coffee)

    160F = 71.1C (Causes 3rd degree burns in 1 second)

    170F = 76.7C (Within most industry reps' range of "ideal" serving temperature)

    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    190F = 87.7C (Highest recommended serving or holding temp, lower end of recommended brewing temp)

    210F = 98.9C (Highest recommended brewing temperature)

    212F = 100C (Boiling.)

    Anyway, the Kelvin folks probably think Celsius is stupid.

    Farenheit (that spelling looks wrong to me, is it?) always seemed odd to me, even when learning it as a kid.

    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Neither does making 1 mile = 5280 feet, but that's the way we do it.

    Doc on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    I'd have never said a reasonable person should expect their coffee to potentially maim them...I guess the jury went the same route. I'd wager it's fairly likely most coffee drinkers don't bother to think about how much damage really hot coffee would do to them if spilled, but perhaps they should be.
    That's a good point. One of the central claims in the McMahon case was that the plaintiffs admitted knowing that coffee could burn you, but they assumed it would amount to blisters (2nd degree) and not skin grafts (3rd degree).

    But they still lost, because it was determined that their lack of specific medical knowledge was not Bunn-o-matic's fault.
    edit: I think it's clear, if nothing else, that the defense fucked up, and that everyone likes old ladies.
    Yes, that was my original point in this thread. The juries were *gasp* human beings. They saw a twerp working for a huge $multi-billion company (with all kinds of PR issues) telling them that, statistically, this didn't even really happen. And they saw an old woman saying "it hurrrrrt... I just wanted medical bills" and showing pictures of her poon-tang with the skin melted right off of it.

    Incidentally, it's not even McD's money on the line. They pay a flat rate to an insurance company every year for this stuff. McD's challenged it because that was their basic policy - if we spill it on them or there's defective equipment, pay them. If we do what we're supposed to and they spill it on themselves, no deal. And the insurance company later admitted that they mistakenly ignored what was going on in this case until it was almost over. Had they been involved earlier, they would have ensured (olol) that the case went in a less emotional direction.
    Azio wrote:
    I'm trying to read this thread, but the constant use of the Goddamned Fahrenheit unit is driving me mad. Who the fuck still uses Fahrenheit degrees, honestly.
    The case was tried in an American court, sorry.

    Subtract 32, multiply times 5, divide by 9.

    32F = 0C (Freezing.)

    110F = 43.3C (Maximum considered "safe" for home water use to avoid scalding. Just above the human pain threshhold.)

    140F = 60C (Temperature some have suggested as safe for coffee, causes 3rd degree burns after 10 seconds)

    150F = 65.5C (Lowest end temperature that any industry representative has been found to suggest for serving coffee)

    160F = 71.1C (Causes 3rd degree burns in 1 second)

    170F = 76.7C (Within most industry reps' range of "ideal" serving temperature)

    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    190F = 87.7C (Highest recommended serving or holding temp, lower end of recommended brewing temp)

    210F = 98.9C (Highest recommended brewing temperature)

    212F = 100C (Boiling.)

    Anyway, the Kelvin folks probably think Celsius is stupid.

    Farenheit (that spelling looks wrong to me, is it?) always seemed odd to me, even when learning it as a kid.

    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Neither does making 1 mile = 5280 feet, but that's the way we do it.

    But it's silly

    I'd like a reformat of the time-measuring system as well. This whole 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, but then 24 hours in a day thing is just silly.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Well, IIRC the important numbers were supposed to be 0 and 100, they just weren't supposed to be boiling and freezing of water.

    0 was supposed to be the freezing point of saltwater, I believe, and 100 the human body temperature. Or some such nonsense. Either way, celcius only makes sense if the two more important temperatures to you are when water freezes or boils. Otherwise choosing "really really cold" and "my body temperature, which feels really really hot" makes more sense, no?

    EDIT: Okay, wikipedia has several different possible stories on the origin. One is that he was shooting for zero to be the coldest common outdoor temperature, and 100 to be body temperature. This makes sense, as the most important temperatures to a human (rather than a scientist) are weather-related...and this gives a nice wide range for perceived outdoor temperature.
    [/trivia]

    tl;dr: The Fahrenheit schale (unlike our system for length) makes a lot of sense for somebody who is A) not a scientist, and B) not in a job where boiling and freezing water is their primary responsibility.

    mcdermott on
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Doc wrote:
    Neither does making 1 mile = 5280 feet, but that's the way we do it.

    It sure is convenient to be able to evenly divide miles into furlongs, though.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Well, IIRC the important numbers were supposed to be 0 and 100, they just weren't supposed to be boiling and freezing of water.

    0 was supposed to be the freezing point of saltwater, I believe, and 100 the human body temperature. Or some such nonsense. Either way, celcius only makes sense if the two more important temperatures to you are when water freezes or boils. Otherwise choosing "really really cold" and "my body temperature, which feels really really hot" makes more sense, no?

    EDIT: Okay, wikipedia has several different possible stories on the origin. One is that he was shooting for zero to be the coldest common outdoor temperature, and 100 to be body temperature. This makes sense, as the most important temperatures to a human (rather than a scientist) are weather-related...and this gives a nice wide range for perceived outdoor temperature.
    But still. When somebody says "it's thirty degrees outside", I know it's a warm summer day. When they say "it's eighty-six degrees F outside", I have no fucking idea what they're talking about because the Fahrenheit system is completely insane. At least miles, gallons, ounces, etc have a constant metric equivalent.

    Azio on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Azio wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Having your important numbers be 32 degrees and 212 degrees doesn't make much sense when there's a scale that's 0 to 100.

    Well, IIRC the important numbers were supposed to be 0 and 100, they just weren't supposed to be boiling and freezing of water.

    0 was supposed to be the freezing point of saltwater, I believe, and 100 the human body temperature. Or some such nonsense. Either way, celcius only makes sense if the two more important temperatures to you are when water freezes or boils. Otherwise choosing "really really cold" and "my body temperature, which feels really really hot" makes more sense, no?

    EDIT: Okay, wikipedia has several different possible stories on the origin. One is that he was shooting for zero to be the coldest common outdoor temperature, and 100 to be body temperature. This makes sense, as the most important temperatures to a human (rather than a scientist) are weather-related...and this gives a nice wide range for perceived outdoor temperature.
    But still. When somebody says "it's thirty degrees outside", I know it's a warm summer day. When they say "it's seventy degrees F outside", I have no fucking idea what they're talking about because the Fahrenheit system is completely useless and arbitrary.

    You only have no idea because you're using a completely different system. Regardless of which system makes more sense, I don't understand why we can't all be using the same one, with this whole globalization thing, everyone using the same basic systems for daily life might be, you know, a good idea.

    Vincent Grayson on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Azio wrote:
    But still. When somebody says "it's thirty degrees outside", I know it's a warm summer day. When they say "it's seventy degrees F outside", I have no fucking idea what they're talking about because the Fahrenheit system is completely useless and arbitrary.
    And when somebody says "it's seventy degrees outside" I know it's a warm summer day. Unlike length/mass (where units are suddenly painful to convert due to not being base-10), temperature running from 0=cold to 100=hot (as percieved by a human) makes perfect sense.

    Seriously, for measuring weather, Fahrenheit is a lot more intuitive than Celsius. It only isn't to you because you are unfamiliar with it. (Now, our units of length and weight are seriously fucked up)

    EDIT: Note that average temperatures across much of the world run from about 0 to about 100 in Fahrenheit. And this doesn't makes sense to you? Though yeah, what VG said.

    mcdermott on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    Unlike length/mass (where units are suddenly painful to convert due to not being base-10)

    *cough*THE METRIC SYSTEM*cough*

    Gorak on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Kelvin makes more sense than both of them. It only makes sense to make the base number the lowest possible temperature.

    Couscous on
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    titmouse wrote:
    Kelvin makes more sense than both of them. It only makes sense to make the base number the lowest possible temperature.

    Why not base it on the highest possible temperature instead?

    Vincent Grayson on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    titmouse wrote:
    Kelvin makes more sense than both of them. It only makes sense to make the base number the lowest possible temperature.

    Why not base it on the highest possible temperature instead?
    There is no known highest possible temperature.

    Couscous on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    titmouse wrote:
    Kelvin makes more sense than both of them. It only makes sense to make the base number the lowest possible temperature.

    Why not base it on the highest possible temperature instead?

    0 Kelvin is the point at which all atomic vibrations stop. A maximum temperature is harder to define - I'm not even sure if it's possible.

    Gorak on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I'd like a reformat of the time-measuring system as well. This whole 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, but then 24 hours in a day thing is just silly.
    That'd be cool, but it is handy when you're dealing with time zones which work on the 360 degree system. I'd like to see all angular systems converted into radians - mainly out of elitist spite.

    Gorak on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Gorak wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Unlike length/mass (where units are suddenly painful to convert due to not being base-10)

    *cough*THE METRIC SYSTEM*cough*

    Um...I guess I should have inserted an "our" before length/mass...as an engineering student I'm intimately familiar with the metric system. Basically I was just saying that in temperature, unlike with length/mass, you don't convert back and forth between higher and lower units...so for a layperson (non-scientist/engineer) the only real difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit is where zero and a hundred are.

    mcdermott on
  • GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcdermott wrote:
    Gorak wrote:
    mcdermott wrote:
    Unlike length/mass (where units are suddenly painful to convert due to not being base-10)

    *cough*THE METRIC SYSTEM*cough*

    Um...I guess I should have inserted an "our" before length/mass...as an engineering student I'm intimately familiar with the metric system.

    Intimately familiar? :winky:


    P.S. Fuck laypeople. What's the point in a university education if you don't get to lord it over everyone else?

    Gorak on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

    That just means he needs to keep repeating it until it becomes true. Same with not-zero = effectively zero.

    I'm still wondering what the value of Yarpha is.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    Feral wrote:
    Goumindong wrote:
    Yar wrote:
    180F = 82.2C (Lower-end "holding" temperatue and upper-end "ideal serving" temperature)

    You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.

    That just means he needs to keep repeating it until it becomes true. Same with not-zero = effectively zero.

    I'm still wondering what the value of Yarpha is.

    It has a certain truthiness.

    Shinto on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.
    Sources listing 178 and 185 as ideal serving temperatures have been cited numerous times here. Starbucks is 175 - 185. I'm not sure what your problem is, or why you have to resort to distorting facts instead of just enjoying an honest discussion on the matter.
    Feral wrote:
    I'm still wondering what the value of Yarpha is.
    Try not to get struck by lightning. Just try it. Hell, try to go just one year without getting struck by lightning.

    Or try not to die in an auto accident next time you get in a car.

    And go buy coffee at McDonalds and try not to burn yourself.

    Guess which one of those three you are most likely to succeed at.

    A statistically significant number of burns would be a number you could expect any policy to have a measurable effect on.

    However, much like trying to avoid getting struck by lightning, there isn't much one can do about McDonald's and be sure it will result in any meaningful change in risk.

    Yar on
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Yar wrote:
    Goumindong wrote:
    You keep saying this, and it keeps not being true.
    Sources listing 178 and 185 as ideal serving temperatures have been cited numerous times here. Starbucks is 175 - 185. I'm not sure what your problem is, or why you have to resort to distorting facts instead of just enjoying an honest discussion on the matter.

    A source listing 180-185 has been listed for holding temperatures, many have been sited for brew temperatires. Starbucks lists 175-185 as a brew temperature, not a serve temperature. [2% Milk burns above 160 anyway, so it aint like they are serving anything near that hot]

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    I can't speak to coffee particularly, but we always held soup around 170 when I was working in restaurants. That stuff was hot.

    Shinto on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Goumindong wrote:
    A source listing 180-185 has been listed for holding temperatures, many have been sited for brew temperatires. Starbucks lists 175-185 as a brew temperature, not a serve temperature. [2% Milk burns above 160 anyway, so it aint like they are serving anything near that hot]
    The debate on temperatures is trending into the absurd.

    First of all, holding temperature is ideal serving temperature. That's exactly what a holding temperature is for. The idea that one should hold coffee at 185, but then transfer to some other status, which is not called "holding," but at which it must then sit for the several minutes it would take to cool to the 140-150 "safe" temperature, is fucking stupid and beyond any sense of reality. Higher temperatures break down coffee faster - so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to recommend a holding temperature to be anything except the minimum temperature at which you intend to serve it (minus perhaps a degree or two of cooling in the 10 second process between holding and serving). To do otherwise is to ruin your coffee more quickly for no reason.

    Secondly, 175 - 185 is not Starbucks brewing temperature. Where the hell did you get that? You cannot brew good coffee that low, except perhaps one cup at a time in a cheap home machine.

    [quote=Law.com]Morgan's cases for individual consumers tend toward products that, like hot coffee, remain unregulated for safety. He has filed a couple of cases challenging the absence of safety features on forklifts, for instance. In Villegas' coffee case, Morgan again will focus on temperature. McDonald's will not say how hot its coffee should be at serving; Starbucks recommends 175 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit.[/quote]

    On average, people enjoy coffee most at 161.8 (remember - this is rapid burning temperature), according to a Berkeley study. That includes people who add cream or who buy it and then drink it at their desk. To meet this, it has to be served upwards of 180.

    Just stop this. You are free to continue to support Liebeck's side of this case, but don't do so at the expense of any honest sensibility on this temperature issue.

    Yar on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    D&D I must confess my love for you and your heated debate of the temperature of coffee.

    Shinto on
Sign In or Register to comment.