[TruthAndDare]

> which is not generally what one expects from coffee

I disagree. I think it's reasonable to expect that coffee and other hot drinks might be all the way up to boiling.

> in a temperature range making burns more likely

Is there a particular range for burns? Isn't it simply that the hotter it is, the more burns you get?

[wpietri]

That sounds linear to me, which is not correct. Injury level is exponential with temperature:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454

Injury time is logarithmic:

http://www.accuratebuilding.com/services/legal/charts/hot_wa...

[TruthAndDare]

> That sounds linear to me

What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.

[wpietri]

The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about.

I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.

[TruthAndDare]

> The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely".

Which makes it sound like there is a lower and an upper bound for this range. That's the issue.

[wpietri]

Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those.

But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.