IStock Photo 10220435 © Robert Hadfield

If a person swallows some bar soap, have they ingested poison? What about poinsettia leaves, or glow-stick fluid? These questions are some of the myriad reasons to call a poison control center.

Every US state either has one or falls under the jurisdiction of a nearby state’s poison control authority. The centers handle millions of calls per year—in California alone, the poison control system receives an estimated 300,000 calls a year, more than 800 a day. Ever since the country’s first poison control committee began in Chicago in 1953, PC centers (61 of them) have sprung up across the nation to handle millions of queries and emergencies, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Poisoning is fairly common: as of 2006, the odds a person will die from an accidental poisoning in a year are 1 in 10,870. That rate is more than double what it was six years previous (1 in 22,060 in 2000). It’s serious business, and the majority of calls to poison control centers are correspondingly serious: the odds a call to a poison control center will be for a human exposure case are 1 in 1.7 (59%) (Animal exposures account for another 1 in 32.06 calls).

Many things qualify as poisons. They can be ingested, injected, inhaled, absorbed through the eyes or ears, or received through a bite or sting. Some substances are toxic no matter what—e.g. antifreeze, drain cleaners, and snakebites—while others are only poisonous when used the wrong way, or when taken in the wrong amount by the wrong person. On your face, makeup (to choose a common household item) is nothing out of the ordinary; in your digestive tract it is much more dangerous.

The most common poison control call involves painkillers, a broad category covering everything from aspirin and ibuprofen to codeine and oxycodone. The odds a call to a poison control center will involve painkillers are 1 in 8.02 (An explanation for this prevalence is that painkillers are one of the few common poisons for both children and adults). Next in line are cosmetics or personal care products (1 in 11.01), household cleaning substances (1 in 11.48), sedatives, hypnotics, or antipsychotics (1 in 16.05), and foreign bodies/toys (1 in 19.42).

Some of the least common calls are for stimulants and street drugs (1 in 53.79), office supplies (1 in 61.83), and fumes, gases, and vapors (1 in 62.02). And of course, there is everything in between. More examples can be found by searching for “poison control” in the Book of Odds search bar.

The beauty of the poison control system is its preventative nature: very often, calling a PC center can circumvent time-consuming information searches, or prevent trips to the hospital. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that poison control centers provide treatment and guidance over the phone to more than 70% of poison-exposure cases. They calculate that for every dollar spent on poison control services, $7 in medical expenses is saved. It is important to note that many calls are made solely for information, with no emergency involved: every 1 in 2.64 calls to a poison control center will be for information only. And civilians are not the only people to take advantage of poison control’s information cache. Doctors and police officers routinely call poison control in order to identify substances or diagnose their harmfulness. In the California system, 20% of calls come from emergency room doctors seeking advice, and 5% from police officers trying to evaluate suspects’ prescription drugs.

Recent state budget cuts are threatening to curtail or eliminate poison control center services. California’s system, $6 million short of its minimum budget, may soon fold. That would make the Golden State the first in the nation to have no poison control system. Without PC services, a spike in 911 calls (and thus ER visits) for poisonings could further overcrowd emergency rooms, increase healthcare costs, and lead to plain inefficiency. How would you feel about waiting for hours in an ER, only to discover that all three items listed in the first sentences of this article are not poisonous after all?