Talk:Nitroglycerin (medication)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Heart pills fall down, go "boom?"

It doesn't answer the age old question of whether or not nitroglycerin heart pills explode if you throw them! --64.252.94.115 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's because i assumed the people reading this article would not be total morons. Sorry i guess i was wrong.Bartimaeus 23:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What an idiot. Of course people are going to wonder about this. I'm going to fix the article right now. -Rolypolyman 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What utter nonsense, that's the most cretinous statement I've heard in a long time. It's right up there with the "some white rapper once used this drug" addition to the Zolpidem article. Go get an education before you tell me what belongs in a article on pharmacology. signed, a pharmacologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.234.251.211 (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He asked a question, and thought it should be answered here. What? Everybody has to be fully informed before reading the article? I thought people come here to find things out. It is neither moronic nor a sign of lack of education to wonder why the same chemical can explode--accidentally--in one application and not in another. And some people might come here to find that out. You tout the fact that you're a pharmacologist; that with your arrogant better-than-thou attitude tells me you're probably a failed doctor, with a huge inferiority complex about the fact. So you have to convince yourself that you're better than others by insulting them for not being an expert in your particular field. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Also not mentioned is the removal of GTN patches during defibrillation (Where they are rumoured to burn the patient/cause minor explosions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.45.50 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please continue sensible discussions surrounding exploding GTN at the bottom of this page

File:Nitroglycerin.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nitroglycerin.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

MythBusters as a source?

As much as I enjoy watching the show... should they really be used as a source? Seems like this should be removed and something more reputable should replace it. I'll leave the edit for someone more knowledgable on the subject. 97.84.164.94 (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

OR criticizing MythBusters

While I share above user's sympathies that we should use a better source, if available, the following section seemed to be WP:OR with no source whatsoever, so I've removed it:

However, it is noted that the testing methods used by MythBusters are inadequate to rule out the possibility of an action, but only to confirm that possibility. It is known that GTN patches have combusted during defibrillation, therefore the argument is moot. The only remaining question is whether the electricity or what exact source or mechanism is the impetus for inciting combustion. MythBusters' posited argument would better be that nitroglycerin does not always explode when electrically charged.

Cool Hand Luke 16:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes would be nice to find something better.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to remove the mythbusters part completely. Mythbusters is a popular TV program, more entertainment than science. The format of the show and the qualifications of the two main presenters (careers in special effects) hardly make it a WP:RS. See the first episode they did on the chicken cannon for example: one of them stated that since the total kinetic energy of a thawed and a frozen chicken would be the same, and given the high velocity, damage would be equal.. That's like saying a balloon filled with water hitting you on the head will hurt just as much as a block of ice of the same mass. The reactions they received led them to reinvestigate in a later episode.

Some of their conclusions could lead to dangerous misinterpretation, see for example the note in the wikipedia article MythBusters_(2004_season): "A normal washing machine drum has so little torque that it can be halted in its spin cycle simply by grabbing on to it". Let's hope no kids reading this want to try for themselves on a fully loaded machine spinning at 1200 rpm, or they could end up like this boy: "Surgeons who operated on a nine-year-old boy who had his arm torn off in a spin dryer say it could be years before he regains full use of the limb again". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/339320.stm DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 13:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Relief of non-cardiac chest pains

I'd like to suggest some additional verbage that indicates that glyceryl trinitrate is effective against many different types of chest pains; in other words, just because someone is given sublingual nitro, it doesn't mean the person has a heart problem. (I just found that out after my wife was treated for "chest pains" that turned out to be completely unrelated to her heart. It would've soothed my worries had such a notation been available.) --Joe Sewell (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is used by paramedics with chest pain as a kind of joint diagnostic tool/treatment.

If the pain goes away it can be cardiac, and the gtn widens the arteries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.75.252 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that it's effectiveness isn't limited to cardiac-related pain. --Joe Sewell (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It also relieves oesophageal spasm... 92.21.178.148 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why no danger of explosion?

I came here to find out why, if the pharmaceutical nitro is chemically the same as the explosive nitroglycerin, is there apparently no danger of explosion. After all, the explosive is well-known to be unstable and dangerous. I see that the article used to contain this statement:

Medicinal nitroglycerin is chemically identical to the explosive, but it is safe because it is far more dilute than pure nitroglycerin, and is bound to other inert substances that disrupts its perfect oxygen balance. The urban legend about defibrillators causing medical nitroglycerin chest patches to explode is a myth, as has been demonstrated in the popular television show MythBusters (episode 73: Speed Cameras).

That was removed in early 2007 by a user who is now barred. Furthermore, that user took part in a discussion above, relating to this very question; that discussion almost immediately degenerated to name-calling--in which that user took part. I think it's a valid question, and should be addressed. People asking it should not simply be dismissed as "morons," and people coming here to read this article should not be expected to be "educated" in the one particular field of pharmacology. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

There is evidence to support the theory that GTN patches will explode if the patient is defibrillated with the defib pads too close to the GTN patch.Tannim101 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is that evidence? TaintedMustard (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This one - probably due tot he metal rather than the chemical http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957298000598

Think thius metnions it too http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472029906700030, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.178.148 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI, There IS a danger of explosion. Not necessarily in an individual spray to treat a single angina attack, usually 1-3 pumps at 400µg - but in an entire 4 to 6 gram bottle, there's potentially enough to blow one of your legs off. I tried to take my bottle of GTN onto a military base in the UK earlier this year (RAF Mildenhall) and was required to take a letter with me from my GP, to prove that it was necessary for my health. It has Reactivity code 4 under NFPA 704 meaning that it's quite capable of explosive decomposition or detonation at normal room temperature and pressure. This is why packaging and patient information leaflets state that you must NOT store it above 25°C or 77°F. I wouldn't like to test it... :O CharlieTheCabbie|Yack to the driver 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Cardiac ischemia

Should the Angina pectoris link be Cardiac ischemia instead? --Shanedidona (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lithium (medication) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)