LD50 - What is it? Where do the Numbers come From?

[MrJim]

It has recently been brought to my attention that some people might put alot of thought behind the numbers following "LD50". This is not only dangerous, but could be fatal.
LD50's are extrapolated from studies done on rats and from individual case studies of people already dead. This provides some highly unrealistic numbers sometimes. It also is so far away from a safe dose that it it quite unreasonable. Put another way, Who would choose this scenario:
You are about to injest a substance - You stand a 50% chance of dieing and a 50% chance of not. And in the 50% chance of not dieing there is a strong chance of organ damage. So even though one might LIVE, they will have damaged themselves beyond repair. Who would want to go anywhere close to the LD50 knowing that? And that is assuming (probably incorrectly) that the LD50 number is actually accurate.
Lets hear everyone's views on this misleading statistic. Lets understand where the numbers come from and what they really mean. This is a harm reduction site - Let's understand how to go beyond regurgitating numbers and let's understand where the truth really lies.

[Alfa]

I just whipped this up for ya: What does LD-50 mean?

[MrJim]

Nice work, Alfa. Damn, That makes my post redundant.

[grandbaby]

But you've still made a very good point. And caused Alfa to put up that great post. I'd never heard of LD-LO before. Now I've got a new half-understood pseudo-technical bit of jargon to sling around like I know what I'm talking about!

[JDreaming]

It's easy to criticize this sort of system, and it certainly has its flaws, but for many chemicals the results of LD50 tests are still the best information available for judging how much of the substance might kill you. At least it's a start.

[Alfa]

No, LD-LO indicates that. LD50 indicates a higher threshold.

[Swimster]

LD-LO would then mean risk threshold so to speak. One should aim towads a dose LESS than LD-LO?

[Alfa]

LD-LO is the risk threshold to die from the intake of the substance yes. So one would indeed need less than that in order not to die. But how much less is not clear. Less than LD-LO might still put one in a coma or inflict other harm.

[MrJim]

Originally Posted by Alfa

LD-LO is the risk threshold to die from the intake of the substance yes. So one would indeed need less than that in order not to die. But how much less is not clear. Less than LD-LO might still put one in a coma or inflict other harm.

This is one of the points I wanted to Hammer in - Just because you might not die doesn't mean that one of your organs won't. If one wants to enjoy substances there should be an exceedingly low risk of permanent damage to yourself. Imagine having to live your life with a tube showed up your genitals because you wanted to catch a stronger buzz.
"Honey, My bag is full again! Honey?"

[Swimster]

indeed. Jerry would go with LESS than LD-LO.