Alcohol in Mouthwash

1985 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-26
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Lethal Dose ◽  
The United States ◽  
Absolute Ethanol ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Accidental Death ◽  
Small Child ◽  
National Poison ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
At Home

Poisoning is an important cause of accidental death in children less than 5 years of age. The most frequently ingested poisons are those that are commonly available at home in pleasant-colored containers and are easily accessible. They are usually in containers that are not child-proof. Mouthwash contains varying concentrations of ethanol ranging from a high of 26.9% (53.8 proof) to 14% (28 proof). A potentially lethal dose of absolute ethanol is approximately 3 g/kg (3.8 mL/kg) in a small child. [See Table in the PDF] During an 18-month period, reports of 422 cases of mouthwash ingestions by children less than 6 years of age were collected by The National Poison Center Network from its member poison centers in selected areas of the United States (unpublished data, 1979).

Bibliometric analysis of poison center-related research published in peer-review journals

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 705-712 ◽  
Author(s):  
MB Forrester
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Medical Toxicology ◽  
The United States ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Advance Knowledge

Poison centers advance knowledge in the field of toxicology through publication in peer-review journals. This investigation describes the pattern of poison center-related publications. Cases were poison center-related research published in peer-review journals during 1995–2014. These were identified through searching the PubMed database, reviewing the tables of contents of selected toxicology journals, and reviewing abstracts of various national and international meetings. The following variables for each publication were identified: year of publication, journal, type of publication (meeting abstract vs. other, i.e. full article or letter to the editor), and the country(ies) of the poison center(s) included in the research. Of the 3147 total publications, 62.1% were meeting abstracts. There were 263 publications in 1995–1999, 536 in 2000–2004, 999 in 2005–2009, and 1349 in 2010–2014. The publications were in 234 different journals. The journals in which the highest number of research was published were Clinical Toxicology (69.7%), Journal of Medical Toxicology (2.2%), and Veterinary and Human Toxicology (2.1%). The research was reported from 62 different countries. The countries with the highest number of publications were the United States (67.9%), United Kingdom (6.5%), Germany (3.9%), France (2.5%), and Italy (2.4%). The number of publications increased greatly over the 20 years. Although the publications were in a large number of journals, a high proportion of the publications were in one journal. While the research came from a large number of countries, the preponderance came from the United States.

scholarly journals (A349) The Role of Poison Centers in the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill Response

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s97-s98
Author(s):  
M. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Health Effects ◽  
Oil Spill ◽  
The United States ◽  
Poison Center ◽  
Draft Guidance ◽  
Medical Support ◽  
National Poison ◽  
Gulf Oil Spill ◽  
Poison Centers ◽  
Oil Spill Response

IntroductionThere are 60 Poison Centers in the United States that manage over 2.5 million poison exposure calls each year. A poison center can be reached 24 hours a day by dialing a national 800 hotline. Poison Centers are staffed by Specialists in Poison Information who are highly trained in clinical toxicology and are very skilled in telephone triage.DiscussionATSDR and the Poison Centers in HHS/FEMA Region 6 developed draft guidance for incorporating Poison Centers into the National Response Plan. That framework was used to incorporate Poison Centers into the gulf oil spill response of 2010. The National Poison hotline was promoted to provide medical support for those with health effects or health questions related to the spill. During the response the surveillance capabilities of the National Poison Data System (NPDS) were highlighted. The Louisiana Poison Center (LPC) and the other gulf states Poison Centers provided information on health effects related to the spill. Information was provided by the LPC to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health Section of Epidemiology and Environmental Toxicology, public information officer to assist in briefing the Governor, the Louisiana Governors Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness to post to the Virtual Louisiana website, as well as ATSDR, CDC, EPA, and other agencies participating in the gulf response unified command. Poison Centers, for the first time, participated in a response on a national level, providing medical support for those with symptoms or medical questions related to the spill. In addition to assisting in the medical care of those exposed to substances related to the oil spill and the response efforts, Poison Centers also responded to questions about air and water quality and seafood safety.ConclusionPoison Centers are a valuable resource to assist in emergency response plans.

Armed Violence in the Ideology of Contemporary Islamic Fundamentalism - Study models

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 237
Author(s):  
Laith Mzahim Khudair Kazem
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Other ◽  
Islamic Fundamentalism ◽  
Islamic Movements ◽  
Important Means ◽  
Armed Violence ◽  
Goals And Objectives ◽  
At Home

The armed violence of many radical Islamic movements is one of the most important means to achieve the goals and objectives of these movements. These movements have legitimized and legitimized these violent practices and constructed justification ideologies in order to justify their use for them both at home against governments or against the other Religiously, intellectually and even culturally, or abroad against countries that call them the term "unbelievers", especially the United States of America.

REVISITING CONTEMPORARY HOMESCHOOLING: THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Zamir
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
American States ◽  
At Home

The term “homeschooling” denotes the process of educating, instructing, and tutoring children by parents at home instead of having this done by professional teachers in formal settings. Although regulation and court rulings vary from one state to another, homeschooling is legal in all fifty American states. Contrary to the growing tendency of parents in the United States to move toward homeschooling in 1999-2012, the rate of homeschooling and the population of those educated in this manner appear to have leveled off in 2012–2016. This paper aims to explain both phenomena and asks whether a trend is at hand.

scholarly journals Complications of drowning: A case report

2019 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 284-8
Author(s):  
Felicia Anita Wijaya ◽  
I Gde Doddy Kurnia Indrawan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Brain Damage ◽  
The United States ◽  
Accidental Death ◽  
Common Cause ◽  
Death By Drowning

Unintentional drowning is the sixth most common cause of accidental death, accounting for 4,086 deaths (1.4 per 100,000) in the United States in 2007.1 In children, drowning is the second leading cause of injury-related death, and those aged 1–3 years have the highest rate of drowning.2 More than 1,400 pediatric drownings were reported in the United States in 2008.3 Many drowning deaths are due to lack of supervision in the bathtub, unprotected access to a pool, or lack of swimming skills.3 For every death by drowning, six children are hospitalized for drowning, and up to 10% of survivors experience severe brain damage.2

scholarly journals Family caregiving and place of death: Insights from cross-national analysis of the Harmonized End of Life Data

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Ailshire ◽  
Margarita Osuna ◽  
Jenny Wilkens ◽  
Jinkook Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Nursing Home ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Family Caregiving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Place Of Death ◽  
Life Data ◽  
Cross National ◽  
At Home

Abstract Objectives Family is largely overlooked in research on factors associated with place of death among older adults. We determine if family caregiving at the end of life is associated with place of death in the United States and Europe. Methods We use the Harmonized End of Life data sets developed by the Gateway to Global Aging Data for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). We conducted multinomial logistic regression on 7,113 decedents from 18 European countries and 3,031 decedents from the United States to determine if family caregiving, defined based on assistance with activities of daily living, was associated with death at home versus at a hospital or nursing home. Results Family caregiving was associated with reduced odds of dying in a hospital and nursing home, relative to dying at home in both the United States and Europe. Care from a spouse/partner or child/grandchild was both more common and more strongly associated with place of death than care from other relatives. Associations between family caregiving and place of death were generally consistent across European welfare regimes. Discussion This cross-national examination of family caregiving indicates that family-based support is universally important in determining where older adults die. In both the United States and in Europe, most care provided during a long-term illness or disability is provided by family caregivers, and it is clear families exert tremendous influence on place of death.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document