I love that this book is written like a story, not just a list of facts. Very well-written and fascinating to read.

Excellent, well-written and fascinating look at early forensic science. As someone who's writing a series of 1920s mystery novels, all this information on the era's poisons and forensic sceince limitations was most welcome! :)

I really liked all of the case info and the explanations of how poisons affect the body, but some of the methodology got a little too technical for my taste. I'm also conflicted about the narratives that included animal testing. I know that many, if not most, medical advances occurred because of tests that were done on animals, but that doesn't mean I like reading about courtroom grandstanding by lawyers who wanted to prove the cruelty of a poison by killing a cat in front of the jury. It just makes me all the more glad that I live in an age where we can use computer models to do some of the tests.

If you enjoyed this book you may also like Stiff by Mary Roach, and Harvard Med: The Story Behind America's Premier Medical School and the Making of America's Doctors by John Langone.

Deborah Blum's The Poisoner's Handbook provides a fascinating account of how forensic science was placed on a sound scientific basis through the efforts of New York City's Chief Medical Examiner, Charles Norris, and chief toxocologist, Alexander Gettler. Blum sets the stage by illustrating how corruption and lack of professionalism allowed poisoners to kill with impunity before Norris took office in 1918. She recounts how Norris and Gettler were able to establish procedures for detecting poisons and how those efforts led to murder convictions and exonerations. Blum also illustrates how Norris and Gettler fought for public health measures intended to regulate dangerous substances and dangerous workplace conditions. However, the book is marred by errors in the explanation of chemistry and physics and even simple arithmetic. "Radium also emits, to a lesser degree or positrons, two other kinds of radiation: beta radiation, which consists of electrons, and gamma radiation, which contains a dangerous mixture of X-rays and other subatomic materials." The sentence makes no sense. Positrons are positively charged anti-particles of electrons. It is also wrong. Beta radiation involves the emission of high speed electrons or positrons from the nucleus. Gamma rays, which are emitted by the nucleus, are dangerous since they have higher energies than X-rays, which are emitted by electrons outside the nucleus. There are far too many such errors in this book.

Fascinating read. Great trivia tidbits throughout such as arsenic being referred to as "the inheritance powder". Great period piece.

Even if you come to the book without a background in history and chemistry, Deborah Blum's The Poisoner's Handbook is a fast-paced, witty treat. The science is easily digestible without being pandering to readers with a non-science background. But what really binds the book is the narrative structure, which is divided by poison and runs roughly chronological through Jazz Age New York. It is an absolute gem of a book.

This was a great book that delivered what it promised: a great story of the birth of forensic science in the United States. Great narrative story telling and a wonderful way to illustrate the intersection of chemistry, biology, and criminal investigation. It also uses the prohibition movement and toxic ingredients in products to illustrate how the public can be poisoned by intent and/or lack of product testing and safety enforcement. I was especially interested in the "radium clock girls" and how long it took for radium to be recognized as the toxic element that it truly was.

I absolutely loved this book -- it makes the scientific concepts so easily accessible and comprehensible.

FANTASTIC BOOK! As a scientist, I love to see a well-researched book. Even better, the science is *sound*. It's so read-able, I suggested it to my mother to read. But yes, as other commenters have noticed, it can be a bit gruesome. Personally, I didn't find it that bad, but if you weren't already used to reading pathology reports and/or dissecting animals, then yes, it might be a bit much for some. But you know, this *is* how it was done...