On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 02:38:43 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Miche wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>>
>>>Deacon wrote:
>>
>>>>Burn treatment has evolved quite a bit in the last few years....
>>>
>>>What's suggested nowadays? It's not a subject I keep up on. Probably
>>>ought to look into it.
>>
>> Cold [water or other liquid], preferably running, for at least 10
>> minutes.
>
>Why does the cold water have to be running? What's wrong with a
>pitcher of ice water? How about if it still hurts badly after 10 minutes?

Once the water is running it typically holds a constant temperature
(unless someone flushes a toilet etc.) ice water can be too cold,
causing the potential of tissue death. ice water can also warm up
above an effective cooling temperature.

You can do whatever it takes to relieve the pain, running water, ice
water, I treated a person that poured a gallon of milk on a burn as it
was all they had close, the recommeded treatment is cold running water
until the pain is relieved. There is discussion between 10 minutes
minimum or 20 minutes minimum but as long as you get pain relief and
stop the heating of the surrounding tissues the treatment is
effective.

Unfortunately there is a portion of the population that thinks if cold
water is good then ice water is better and if ice water is better then
ice is even more better but they fail to think far enough ahead to
realize that ice causes frostbite which can be worse than their
initial superficial burn.

>
>Pastorio
>
>> I can speak to the effectiveness of this treatment. No blisters, no
>> scar.