3 ms·

> which is not generally what one expects from coffee I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to

> which is not generally what one expects from coffee I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling. > in a temperature range making burns more likely Is there a particular range for burns? Isn't it simply that the hotter it is, the more burns you get?

wpietri 10y ago
That sounds linear to me, which is not correct. Injury level is exponential with temperature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 Injury time is logarithmic: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa...
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  > That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about. I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.
    - TruthAndDare 10y ago
      > The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
      - wpietri 10y ago
        Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those. But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.

wpietri 10y ago

That sounds linear to me, which is not correct. Injury level is exponential with temperature: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 Injury time is logarithmic: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_graph.html http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa...

TruthAndDare 10y ago
> That sounds linear to me What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.
- wpietri 10y ago
  The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about. I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.
  - TruthAndDare 10y ago
    > The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those. But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.