In terms of risk assessment, cannot see how you can compare cocktail sticks with LN2.The former could even be used as tooth picks whereas the latter in my days was stored in special flasks and only used with special gloves unless you wished your hands destroyed i.e. one you can let out, the other you keep safely stored. NO CONTEST unless we risk assess everything, glad to be retired !!!

having run bars resturantes and hotels in the past, knowing the high pace and preasure on staff, the use of such items beggers belief

This young girl had to have emergency surgery and the aftermath of this incident will effect her for the rest of her life. I think that some posters are dismissive of the serious consequences of this incident. The use of this stuff in bars should be banned. To use it to make cocktails more fun? Yeah, some fun to have your stomach removed. I agree with Rob M it's use beggers belief.

I have to agree with Clairel and Rob M. I spent 28years in the licensed trade in Scotland and not only applied the law but presumed a duty of care for my customers. It is "illegal to serve a drunk person" never mind knowingly serve them something harmful. Even if the young lady was sober, where was the duty of care? A Kurdziel blames the LN, like all harmful substances it just has to be handled with care. That licensee is behind the wrong type of bar.

I am sorry anybody is offended by my comments. That was not my intention. My concern was over the idea of ‘banning’ things. In reality society does not ban things. Society has not banned heroin, it is still available to trained medical practitioners who are licensed to issue it in controlled circumstances. There is a system to manage the doctors and to make sure that they do not abuse the system. The problem with such a approach is that is plaices the onus on the enforcers to identify the risks and to manage them. Of course the beauty of the H&S regime is that it does not ban anything. Instead it places the onus on the risk creators usually the employer in this case the bar staff. They should be the ones taking responsibility to make sure if they are creating a risk that it is properly managed ie if they a are going to use liquid nitrogen in drinks they use it correctly. The alternative would seem to be a regime to control the use of liquid nitrogen- who should be allowed to use it? And in what circumstances would they be using it and of course this would have to be monitored (by EHO?) Knee jerk reactions lead to poorly thought out solutions – remember the dangerous dogs act following a series of very unpleasant dogs attacks on children.

I think LN2 in a drink is a particularly dumb thing to do, but I must return to proportionality. And as for cocktail sticks, and all of those who simply haven't got a clue - go read the literature. There are actually many cases reported, mainly of oropharyngeal and oesophageal injuries, many leading to complex inflammatory and infection-related injuries and to several fatal cases though direct puncture of the oesophagus and the major blood vessels that run just beneath. There are very many other minor injuries and of course, you're not supposed to eat the cocktail stick. Only an idiot would do that wouldn't they? Just as this idiot drank some LN2. There are far more cases of life threatening and fatal cocktail stick-related injuries that the one incident about which some here seem to be getting almost hysterical. It does not impress that so many can be so bullish in their certainty that they know exactly what to do, regardless of how extreme that is, when the best they have done is to read a few words in a headline newspaper report. Go read the literature, and learn from that the importance of proportionality, and the issues I raise about cocktail sticks. Then see if you might come to a different conclusion.

Having taken Ian's advice I did some reading on the Liquid Nitrogen (LN2) and it is clear it can be a very harmful substance. Misused or in the wrong hands it can be deadly, apart from burns to skin it can be an asphyxiant. Liquid nitrogen has a large expansion ratio on evaporation - one litre of liquid nitrogen can result in about 700 litres of gas - so only a relatively small volume of liquid nitrogen has to evaporate within a room to result in an oxygen deficient atmosphere. A number of good reasons to stay clear of LN2 and especially when added to cocktails!

Ian, I am quite surprised you are commenting on the abusive comments directed towards you - your previous post last week was an absolute disgrace. A truly awful injury for anyone to recieve.

Give the moderators a break, they asked for it and deserve it, perhaps especially so from IOSH members. If you wish to continue with youo rude and sarcastic comments please do contact me directly. Give a real name and identify yourself properly. Be prepared to stand by and support your comments with a proper standard of professionalism and robust evidence. Be prepared also to face a formal challenge.

Okay Ian, misread your post. Still some interesting facts on LN2. Incidentally, how long were you in the Diplomatic Corps?

Thanks for the update AK. However: The payment of an upfront penalty to avoid prosecution is a new one on me... Is this poor reporting? Is this a form of 'fixed penalty notice' for H&S offences?

Yes. Utterly new to me...and totally at odds with British justice system. Only things I can come up with are a. Poor reporting (but seems to be a specific item so unlikely) or b. Possible application for 'wasted costs'. I believe wasted costs can be applied for whereby an individual through their acts or omissions have wasted the time and resources. Trying to be careful with speculating (although case has been heard and now essentially only awaiting sentencing) but basis for not guilty plea could have been new news to the prosecutors and enough for them to reassess. Guesswork only.

Here's an update. Earlier this year the wine bar company pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching section 3(1) of the HSW Act 1974 relating to the circumstances in which a young woman had to have her stomach removed after drinking a liquid nitrogen cocktail in October 2012. On 17.9.15 the company was fined £100,000 and ordered to pay £40,000. Various newspaper websites published similar articles about the case but the one at http://www.dailymail.co....-party-lost-stomach.html seemed to contain more information than the others. (Compared with some Daily Mail articles this one seems relatively free of sensationalism. Even so, it reaped a wide range of comments including some highly puerile ones. Also, one of the article's sub-headings refers to the bar as being in Preston when in fact it is in Lancaster - just one small example of why people should never assume that everything they see on the internet is accurate.) The articles commonly mention that a senior health & safety officer (most likely an environmental health officer [EHO] from the local council) had expressed concern about the use of liquid nitrogen during a visit to the bar in May 2012. He subsequently confirmed his concern to the company by means of a letter and a copy of a guidance document, but never received any response. Though it's not clear which document was sent by the EHO, forum users might be interested to see the British Compressed Gases Association (BCGA) document "Beverage Gases - Gases in the beverage and hospitality industries" at http://www.bcga.co.uk/pages/index.cfm?page_id=84 This document contains a link to BCGA Leaflet 07: 2012 (Revision 3) "The Dangers of Industrial Gas Abuse" which includes a brief mention of adding CO2 pellets or liquid nitrogen to cocktail drinks. Can any forum users with knowledge of the beverage & hospitality industries comment as to what effects the circumstances which occurred in October 2012 had or appear to have had on other bars and hotels which used liquid nitrogen with cocktails? Did some or most establishments abandon the practice or did some continue it and ensure that they had suitably strict procedures for it and that all relevant employees fully understood them?

Another interesting resurrection of an old thread. When we talk about 'risk' it comes in many different levels and guises. Surely you cannot compare a risk taken for so-called pleasure which the participant was not aware of the potential consequences with other types of risky activities i.e. bungee jumping, rock climbing, etc.