I am not your slave, Glaxo Smith Kline!

July 29, 2006 1:05 PM

I want to know the WHY of warnings on things. Often, there's just the warning, but no explanation of why IGNORING it would be so bad.

Example 1: I use an asthma inhaler. Pulmicort. It says to rinse my mouth after inhaling and to NOT swallow. Why? I have ignored this instruction, but I'm wondering why am I not supposed to swallow whatever residue I'm supposedly rinsing out. What happens?

Example 2: It says in my owner's manual to NEVER allow my gas to drop below 30 miles left. (I have a BMW, it indicates how many miles your tank has remaining) Why not? What will happen?

I need answers to these questions. For some reason, being told to NOT do something, with no explanation, really bugs me. So, what harm am I doing by swallowing the residue and sometimes letting my gas tank drop below 31 miles?

posted by generic230 to grab bag (19 comments total)

With regards to the gas tank, some fuel pumps are mounted on the bottom of the gas tank. The gasoline in the tank serves as both a sort of lubricant and coolant for the pump. So, if gas runs too low, it wears out the fuel pump prematurely.
posted by Brian James at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2006

The warnings are there so that people can't sue. Probably, there is a low probability that ignoring them will possibly result in something bad happening. The warnings make it so that the company can say "we told you so, and we're not liable".
posted by interrobang at 1:10 PM on July 29, 2006

Manufacturers are liable for any "foreseeable" injury from their product. You being a total idiot is usually foreseeable unless you're doing something completely bizarre (e.g., there's no need to put a "DO NOT JUGGLE" label on a chainsaw.) If following a warning would tend to cause someone to avoid the injury-inducing activity, that gets the manufacturer off the hook.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 1:18 PM on July 29, 2006

I've always heard the low gas tank thing was because sediment or condensation in your gas tank could get sucked up if you use they very last of the fuel in the tank.


As for the inhaler warning. I'm inclined to think that since this is an inhaled medication, it is not fully tested or certified for oral ingestion. They are just covering their butts, as interroband said.
posted by utsutsu at 1:18 PM on July 29, 2006

Actually with the Pulmicort, the reason the instructions say to rinse out your mouth every time after using it is because inhaled steroids can cause oral thrush infections. Rinsing your mouth helps to prevent the infection - I've been taking Advair (which also contains a steroid) for three years now, and even after rinsing my mouth every time, I still managed to get an infection recently. Not fun.
posted by flod logic at 1:29 PM on July 29, 2006

Recently I have noticed that many warnings on products I use start to add explanations. Instead of just "unsuitable for children under three", it will add "because they may drink the liquid" or "because they may swallow small parts" or "because the paint is toxic". That's very helpful.

If you wonder about the why's of a specific product, I would not hesitate to call them and ask.
posted by davar at 2:15 PM on July 29, 2006

It says to rinse my mouth after inhaling and to NOT swallow. Why?

Do you get your prescriptions from the pharmacy with all the associated paperwork and tiny print instruction manuals that come with them? Mine very clearly stated what the side effects were of not rinsing your mouth out [oral thrush infections, as flod logic says] and went into some detail about what percentage of people who used the inhaler wound up with such symptoms [flod logic: yes, me: no, and I don't rinse my mouth out].

Next time you get your prescription filled, dig that onionskin-thin piece of paper with the microprint out of the box and you can read all about why you should rinse your mouth out as well as many other horrible and not so horrible things that can befall you if you use the product.

Alternately, go to the website and click on the "prescription information" link on the main page. You'll get this patient instructions page. Allow me to draw your attetntion to Exhibit A, on page 3.



I don't know anything about your gas tank.
posted by jessamyn at 2:20 PM on July 29, 2006

Re: gas tank ... what others have said, but also, in some cars, the fuel injection system will fail if there is not enough pressure in the line, similar to how a siphon works.
posted by frogan at 2:42 PM on July 29, 2006

Re: gas tank

1) CarTalk

2) Sometimes the fuel sensor can be a bit off; you're at 25 miles remaining and then...poof! All gone.
posted by trevyn at 2:53 PM on July 29, 2006

Manufacturers are liable for any "foreseeable" injury from their product.

This is a grossly oversimplified comment with a kernel of truth.

First, what a manufacturer can be held liable for will vary widely from state to state.

Second, in all states, manufacturers are not liable for any injury from use of their product, foreseeable or not, unless it can be shown that the product is not reasonably safe for its intended use.

Third, in many states, a product may be found to be not reasonable safe if it is not accompanied by appropriate warnings.

The kernel of truth: in many states, "misuse" of the product is not a defense to a failure to warn claim if the misuse is reasonably foreseeable. A company may have to warn against stupid misuse of its products.

This is why we see all these goofy warnings, telling us not to drink gasoline, not to pour perfume on open flame, etc.

And since a lot of warnings have to fit on a label, and because misuse has a myriad of variations, they cannot all be put on the product.

As one very perceptive safety engineer named Ralph has said, making products foolproof is very difficult, because fools are ingenious at coming up with new ways to misuse them.
posted by yclipse at 4:54 PM on July 29, 2006

For some reason, being told to NOT do something, with no explanation, really bugs me.

The reason it bugs you is that you're a rational adult.

The reason there are such warnings without explanations (assuming that the explanation isn't provided somewhere else, as with the inhaler) is that the people who wrote the document are either more interested in having a warning for its own sake, or they are not very competent. Warnings without explanations of possible consequences are incomplete. Writers should complete them.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:23 PM on July 29, 2006

the people who wrote the document are either more interested in having a warning for its own sake, or they are not very competent. Warnings without explanations of possible consequences are incomplete. Writers should complete them.

The markerters aren't dumb. The customers are.

a) It's often impossible to enumerate all the ways something can go bad within a reasonable amount of space. Go take a look at a magazine ad for a prescription medicine sometime. Look at the back page. See the entire page of teeny-tiny text? That's a giant legal warning of the medicine's indications, contra-indications and side effects, with related data. Ever read one of those thing? Now imagine your 70-year-old grandmother trying to read it.

b) If you are specific, you run the risk of being overly specific, which invites the uneducated end-user to make the wrong decision. "Hmm, this says it causes low fetal birth weight. That doesn't sound too bad."
posted by frogan at 1:31 PM on July 30, 2006

My favourite warning ever is on the big yellow electric cable in the Honda hybrid. It says something to the effect that messing with the cable will kill you. No "may cause death or serious injury" wish-washiness.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:20 PM on July 30, 2006

Similar to FFF, I saw a warning sign years ago in Glacier National Park, that was perfectly clear about the consequences of carelessness. At the mouth of a trail that led up the sheer side of a cliff, with nothing keeping you on the dangerously narrow path but a cable stapled into the rock, a sign read simply: "If you slip and fall, you will die."

These labels you are encountering obviously omit long explanations in favor of brevity and legibility.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 6:27 AM on July 31, 2006

The markerters aren't dumb. The customers are.

This is not an either/or situation. If you're one of the writers of cautions who tells himself that his readers are "dumb" so you don't need to explain what the consequences of ignoring the caution might be, then you're also "dumb".

Providing an explanation does not imply providing a lengthy explanation. See the previous two comments.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:25 AM on July 31, 2006

If you're one of the writers of cautions who tells himself that his readers are "dumb" so you don't need to explain what the consequences of ignoring the caution might be, then you're also "dumb".

You're so, so missing the point. It's not that the writer doesn't feel "the need to explain." It's that often the act of attempting to explain itself is dangerous.

Which is more effective:
* Telling a three-year-old not to touch a hot stove because he will burn his hand?
* Telling a three-year-old not to touch a hot stove because studies indicate that after 1 second, he is 10 percent likely to suffer a first-degree burn provided the ambient humidity is at X percent, however, he is 25 percent likely to suffer a second-degree burn if the temperature of the flame is ... blah blah blah.

In other words, if someone asks you what time it is, they want to know what time it is. They're not asking you how to build a clock.
posted by frogan at 2:57 PM on July 31, 2006

I'm also reminded of my experiences in learning to scuba dive.

Instructor A warned me not to hold my breath underwater while breathing compressed air, because of the danger of embolisms, of which there were several types, including thoracic, pneumo-thoracic and X number of other types.

Instructor B warned me not to hold my breath underwater while breathing compressed air, because "your lungs will explode. I could tell you about all the different types of embolisms, but I want you to think of it in one simple way -- your lungs will explode."
posted by frogan at 3:08 PM on July 31, 2006

What is the point I'm missing? Here is part of the original question:
Often, there's just the warning, but no explanation of why IGNORING it would be so bad.

Here is your example from your last post:
Which is more effective:
* Telling a three-year-old not to touch a hot stove because he will burn his hand?
* Telling a three-year-old not to touch a hot stove because studies indicate that after 1 second, he is 10 percent likely to suffer a first-degree burn provided the ambient humidity is at X percent, however, he is 25 percent likely to suffer a second-degree burn if the temperature of the flame is ... blah blah blah.

Your first instance contains exactly the kind of explanation I am talking about: because he will burn his hand. Nowhere did I advocate anything like your second instance. An explanation is not a dissertation, nor did I ever say it should be. In fact, every single one of your examples includes some kind of reason why ignoring the instruction would be a bad thing. Just what is your point?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:47 AM on August 1, 2006

Possibly the difficulty here is that you believe this is a discussion about marketing literature. It isn't. The original question talks about two products that the poster already owns, and warnings in the owner's manual and user labeling of those products. OP would probably never have seen the warnings prior to obtaining the products.

Proper instructional literature should adhere to certain standards, one of which is to define a consequence of ignoring any warnings or cautions. That doesn't mean there has to be a comprehensive list, or an exhaustive analysis of what can happen, and how it can happen, and what to do about it. It means there should be some words saying what a possible bad consequence could be. This is a service to the readers, because it helps them gauge the seriousness of a warning. There is no way including such words is "dangerous".

Marketing literature is something else. Except for cases like the lists of side effects on medicine advertising, which are required by law, marketing can say, or not say, most anything. You may think that those lists are useless or even dangerous, and you might be right, but that is not what this discussion is about.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:42 AM on August 1, 2006