Talk:My Strange Addiction

This article and chart is terrible

fix it.

It's fixed. Someone when adding the show descriptions accidentally messed up the code that creates the table.

Note this is a very obscure show, but it is open for anyone to edit. If you would like to improve the article content, go right ahead.Legitimus (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Classification as a mockumentary

As per reverts at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Strange_Addiction&diff=622081248&oldid=621696549

Any reasonable person reading the episode guide listed on the article will agree that this show does not represent real acts. Quoting from the article:

• Crystal has been eating household cleanser everyday since she was twelve
• Tempestt eats detergent up to seven times a day, not to mention the soap she eats in the shower
• Josh enjoys ... the glass as he bites into it. Over the past four years, he has consumed more than 100 glasses and 250 light bulbs. As if ingesting glass wasn't dangerous enough, Josh also swallows live bullets, up to 30 in one sitting
• Gloria has taken her addiction to bleach to the extreme – she bathes in it daily, pours it on her hand to smell
• Shannon, of Welland, Ontario, can't stop drinking gasoline
• Danielle has been addicted to vapor rub for more than 20 years, going through more than 30 jars, inhalers and patches every week

I cannot fathom why anyone would want me to provide evidence as to why any of these, or many of the other acts listed on the episode guide, are not possible without someone killing themselves. If it's really necessary for me to provide evidence that these are simply not possible, I shall. Otherwise could we please agree that this show is a mockumentary? I also do not accept that the channel they are broadcast on - TLC - are a valid source of facts, or reference, as per edit comment "My Strange Addiction is NOT a mockumentary, according to TLC - it is non fiction and all stories are real"

I appreciate that some of the issues on the show are real conditions - hail pulling, nail growing, attractions to inanimate objects etc. I have no interest in demeaning or deprecating anyone who suffers these real conditions, but the fact that some are real does not stop the show from being a work of fiction.

AD (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult call to make. I share your aggravation after having come across a rash of predatory shows these past few years that are absolutely fake and use hired actors, but the studio/channel/disclaimer swears up and down are real (Amish Mafia comes to mind). Even this show's title is offensive to anyone who works in mental health and substance abuse considering almost none of the characters have an actual addiction.

But here's the problem: If the studio is going to claim it's real, we have to report what they say. But we can also post counter-claims. And yes, they have to be sourced by more than simple deductive reasoning, as the rules against WP:OR state. I know, it's frustrating, but it's just the rules we have to play by. Have you got a reputable source that contests the show's authenticity? We can make a section about it just like the aforementioned bogus Discovery Channel show.Legitimus (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I disagree with your statement "If the studio is going to claim it's real, we have to report what they say". A television studio cannot be considered a reliable, factual source of information. However, to back up our opinions I have done some work on some of the more blatantly outlandish claims.AD (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You can disagree with my statement all you want, that is policy of Wikipedia. A related policy is WP:SYNTHESIS, which is using a source that is reliable in and off itself, but does not actually name the specific topic of this article. In other words, your information below might all be good but you are technically trying to force an inference about this TV show. Surely if it were as obvious as you claim, there is a news article or journal article somewhere wherein an expect points out these things?

On the subject, I was looking through official sites and it doesn't appear to claim truth or fiction one way or the other. Does the show open with any kind of disclaimer? Often bogus shows contain these really slippery equivocations about the show's veracity and in doing so out themselves.Legitimus (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have more experience with Wikipedia policy than I, so I shall acquiesce that TV shows are considered reliable sources. I'm not here for a fight! I am not attempting to infer that the show is a portrayal of fictional events, I am attempting to prove it cannot be anything but fiction. I do not think I am creating synthesis by using toxicity data from the given sources to show that the given chemicals are fatal when interacted with in a way the show portrays. Reading the sources gives a pretty grim assessment of how overwhelmingly dangerous the chemicals are and the range of damage they cause, let alone with ongoing consumption.

The show's claims of people ingesting things isn't a one-off - it seems to be one of the themes that the show uses, so attempting to refute the possibility of them seems one method of proving it's all fake, and is in fact a mockumentary. I would certainly forgive a documentary show an accidental inclusion of a real person claiming to eat or drink something dangerous every day.AD (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me phrase it another way. A TV Show is considered a reliable source about itself, not about the subject matter portrayed. Lord knows how many TV shows peddle outright lies. I have been doing the Google thing to try and find more information about professional opinions of the show, but so far not a lot is turning up, though there are many non-reliable accusations of fakery (forums, comments). This may be simply because the show is not popular enough to attract much professional scrutiny.

Perhaps there may be a partial solution without getting too heavy-handed in the accusation, like a section at the bottom detailing how some portrayals appear to be falsified. If another editor objects, then we'll worry about it then and take it to the talk page. It should be phrased carefully though, because mockumentary implies all of it is fake, and there are other plausible explanations. For example, based on TLC's casting call material, it's possible that a proportion of the people portrayed are simply fakers attempting to fool TLC to get money/attention (there's scientific evidence that Reality Show participants have the disproportionately highnarcissism compared to the population). Pretending to eat a non-food item is after all pretty easy to fake (sugar glass, edible paper, apple juice in a gas can) and requires no real acting to pull off. TLC might be fooled, or perhaps intentionally turns a blind eye because it makes for good TV.Legitimus (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Gasoline toxicity

The United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states: "Inhalation of very high concentrations of gasoline vapors or ingestion of gasoline can be fatal in both humans and animals". The PDF goes on to list symptoms such as chemical pneumonitis, pneumonia, pulmonary haemorrhage, edema, "a whole spectrum of neurological effects" (page 68), blood dyscrasia. Page 69 continues: "Inhalation of gasoline vapors or ingestion of gasoline can be fatal to both humans and experimental animals. Several case reports of either accidental or intentional inhalation or ingestion of gasoline resulting in death have been published (Ainsworth 1960; Boeckx et al. 1977; Camevale et al. 1983; Poklis 1976; Wang and Irons 1961). Lethal concentrations of gasoline vapors have been reported to range from >5,000 ppm to 20,000 ppm in humans (Ainsworth 1960; Wang and Irons 1961), whereas the lethal ingested dose of gasoline has been estimated to be 12 ounces (350 g, or 5 g/kg for a 70-kg individual) (Anonymous 1989). The cause of death following inhalation of gasoline vapors or ingestion of gasoline has been postulated to be either central nervous system depression (asphyxia) leading to respiratory failure or cardiac sensitization to circulating catecholamines resulting in the occurrence of a fatal arrhythmia (EPA 1987a; Poklis 1976). In addition, ingested gasoline can be aspirated leading to severe chemical pneumonitis (EPA 1987a).

References

Household cleanser / detergent toxicity

A non-exhaustive list of common toxic chemicals found in household products:

Sodium hypochlorite toxicity

The toxic effects of sodium and calcium hypochlorite are primarily due to the corrosive properties of the hypochlorite moiety. Hypochlorite causes tissue damage by liquefaction necrosis. Fats and proteins are saponified, resulting in deep tissue destruction. Further injury is caused by thrombosis of blood vessels. Injury increases with hypochlorite concentration and pH. Ingestion of hypochlorite solutions or powder can also cause severe corrosive injury to the mouth, throat, esophagus, and stomach, with bleeding, perforation, scarring, or stricture formation as potential sequelae. Exposure to toxic gases generated from hypochlorite solutions can lead to reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS), a chemical irritant-induced type of asthma. Chronic complications following ingestion of hypochlorite include esophageal obstruction, pyloric stenosis, squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, and vocal cord paralysis with consequent airway obstruction. Follow up is recommended for all hospitalized patients because long-term gastrointestinal or respiratory problems can result. Respiratory monitoring is recommended until the patient is symptom-free. Chlorine-induced reactive airways dysfunction syndrome (RADS) has been reported to persist from 2 to 12 years.

Ammonia toxicity

Nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain are common symptoms following ingestion of ammonia. On rare occasions, deliberate ingestion of household ammonia (5-10%) has resulted in severe esophageal burns. Ingestion of more concentrated ammonia can cause severe corrosive injury to the mouth, throat, esophagus and stomach.

Bleach / chlorine toxicity

"...concentrations of 400 ppm (of chlorine gas) can be lethal to humans in 30 minutes"

Phenol toxicity

Accidental and intentional ingestions of phenol have been reported. As little as 50 to 500 mg has been fatal in infants. Deaths in adults have resulted after ingestions of 1 to 32 g Repeated phenol exposure in the workplace has caused renal damage including kidney inflammation, swelling in the kidney tubules and cells, and degenerative changes in glomeruli. Liver damage and pigment changes of the skin have been noted in some workers. Chronic exposure has also been correlated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease and insufficient blood supply to the heart in workers.

References

Dangers of habitual swallowing of foreign bodies

An estimated 1500 deaths occur annually from foreign bodies in the upper GI tract. Potential complications of oropharyngeal foreign bodies include abrasions, lacerations, and punctures, with associated abscesses, perforations, and soft-tissue infections. Esophageal foreign bodies can also cause abrasions, punctures, and perforations, with resultant injuries or infections to surrounding structures, including abscesses, pneumomediastinum or mediastinitis; pneumothorax, pericarditis or tamponade, fistulas, or even vascular injuries to the aorta; or pulmonary vasculature. Additionally, button batteries can rapidly create esophageal necrosis. Complications from foreign bodies in the stomach and small intestine typically involve perforation and associated infection, including peritonitis.

References

Oral toxicity of camphor, a key vapor rub component

Central nervous system (CNS) and kidney: convulsions followed by depression, and renal damage may occur after intake of relatively small amounts of camphor may occur. The main risks are apnoea, asystole, and severe post-convulsive coma. Toxic effects appear after the ingestion of approximately 2 g (lethal dose LD adults: 4 g; children: 1 g of pure camphor).

Camphor is one of the key components of vapor rub products and a leading brand contains "less than 4.8%".

Assuming a tub of 50g of vapor rub contains 4% of camphor, it yields lethal doses at a single tub - 2g. Consuming "more than 30 jars, inhalers and patches every week" is irrefutably well above a lethal dose of camphor.

AD (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

References