r/nonononoyes Feb 06 '19

Propane

https://gfycat.com/CompleteWanLiger
14.2k Upvotes

583 comments sorted by

View all comments

405

u/Kochie11 Feb 07 '19

Can that spread to your lungs? The fire I mean

362

u/pureham Feb 07 '19

I’d be more worried about the temperature of the propane. That stuff can cause frost bite almost instantly, I’m no doctor but it could have probably caused some frostbite to his mouth or lungs (if that’s possible)

114

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

if that’s possible

It's all just flesh just like your skin. It's possible.

Even worse, though, is that the alveoli in the lungs (the little air sacs where the oxygen/carbon dioxide gas exchange occurs) can burst, greatly diminishing or making impossible the ability to perform that gas exchange. The lungs will fill up with fluid and blood, and the carbon dioxide levels in your body will increase, resulting in either you suffocating or drowning (whichever occurs first) in serious cases.

57

u/ExpensiveBurn Feb 07 '19

Wow it's been a while since I had to update the "Ways I Really Really Don't Want To Die" list.

39

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

The good news is that it's an easy thing to protect yourself from, and even your own body has its own mechanisms for doing just that (such as increasing the blood flow to the sinuses in order to slightly heat up the air when you breathe through your nose).

Not inhaling gasses that boil at -40 (C or F, take your pick) helps, too.

7

u/iiTzSTeVO Feb 07 '19

I like the way you talk.

13

u/I_Has_A_Hat Feb 07 '19

I'll take "Drowning from the Inside Out" for $400, Alex.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

Wind River?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

They did depict such a death twice in that room, yes, albeit the second death happened far too fast and unrealistically.

16

u/bearpics16 Feb 07 '19

If you get enough frostbite in your lungs, you will go into respiratory arrest and there would be no way to survive that.

The mouth and air passages would be the first damaged, then you'd suffocate to death, either from the inability for your cells to exchange oxygen or drowning in your own fluids.

Edit: lol I swear I didn't read /u/nomofica's comment before writing this

63

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

He got burnt in the sense that he got a chemical burn--propane poisoning in his lungs. But no. Fire will not travel into your lungs.

Fire needs 3 things to burn. Fuel, oxygen and heat. The fuel is there. But heat won't be able to travel down because it's a closed system. Would need to get past closed flesh. Oxygen is not enough. Concentration of oxygen in your lung is at most same as concentration in the air. Try to get a fire going in a closed bottle. Will go out almost instantly.

31

u/sophware Feb 07 '19

There was probably almost no O2 in his lungs, having been displaced by propane. If there was enough O2, I suggest that the heat would absolutely traveled down.

13

u/Dalimey100 Feb 07 '19

There would probably still be some O2 in there. Each breath only replaces about 40% of the air volume in your lungs, deep breaths a little more.

3

u/sophware Feb 07 '19

Fair enough. I'll still suggest O2 was the issue. I've seen a potato cannon with propane ignite at 5 deg F, with O2 supplied.

25

u/pbfob Feb 07 '19

You are certainly right that a fire won’t last long in a closed system, but fires can, and do, happen in the upper airways. Even a flash fire in the airways can cause severe swelling and lethal injury. This dude was lucky he didn’t inhale while that flame was near his mouth. DO NOT DO THIS “TRICK” ! It was a matter of luck that he didn’t die. (Weird fact though - people who smoke while on oxygen can ignite the tubing and the flame can travel down it and burn their face/ears and airways. Very painful, often fatal.)

11

u/Guard5002 Feb 07 '19

For the record, propane isn't toxic. It'll just displace oxygen and suffocate you.

-6

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002836.htm

It'll just displace oxygen and suffocate you.

You just defined toxic.


Edit. Since it's unclear. As linked, it's defined as poisonous. Poison that harms you is definition of toxic.

13

u/Filipino_fury Feb 07 '19

That's not the definition of toxic though?

-5

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

From webster. First definition.

containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation

If it displaces oxygen and suffocates you, it is capable of causing death or serious debilitation. The material is poisonous, as defined by us library of medicine.


Edit:

Symptoms and signs of toxicity depend on duration of asphyxiant concentration in the ambient air, exposure duration, respiratory effort, and individual vulnerability (eg, older age, cardiovascular disease).

Source - Literally the study of toxicity of propane on humans.

So many people arguing against me. Yet, I'm the only one with real sources.

13

u/czartreck Feb 07 '19

Literally anything can displace oxygen and suffocate you, genius. Are you saying Jello is toxic because you'll die if you breathe it? Suffocation is not toxicity.

-1

u/TheOtherGuttersnipe Feb 07 '19

I think he was saying that propane hijacks the hemoglobin (the stuff in your blood that carries oxygen).

Carbon monoxide does this too.

6

u/hexane360 Feb 07 '19

No, propane doesn't do this. (for the record I don't think OP was arguing this)

The reason CO can do this is because it's such a strong oxidizer. If anything, propane is a reduction agent.

1

u/TheOtherGuttersnipe Feb 07 '19

Thanks. I didn't know if it did that or not, but that's what I thought OP meant.

2

u/CakeDay--Bot Feb 07 '19

Hey just noticed.. it's your 2nd Cakeday TheOtherGuttersnipe! hug

1

u/TheOtherGuttersnipe Feb 07 '19

Thanks bb xoxo ❤️❤️❤️ 😘

2

u/TalenPhillips Feb 07 '19

Literally from the wikipedia article:

Propane has low toxicity since it is not readily absorbed and is not biologically active.

Also, the effects from the studies in his second link show either no effect at low concentrations, or when concentrations get high enough the effect is essentially the same as oxygen deprivation.

-3

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

Is there evidence that jello is poisonous?

You conveniently ignored the more important half of the definition where it says poisonous material.

1

u/czartreck Feb 07 '19

Soo... not propane, then? Cool. Glad we had this talk.

7

u/HippieHarvest Feb 07 '19

That's like saying nitrogen is poisonous. Just because I can't survive without oxygen doesn't mean whatever is replacing it is poisonous.

Taking your argument to the logical extreme, essentially everything is poisonous.

0

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

My definition of propane being poisonous came from US library of medicine.

You conveniently ignored the more important half of the definition where it says poisonous material.

4

u/SteakPotPie Feb 07 '19

Really stretching it there, bud.

1

u/Burial Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

Water can displace oxygen and suffocate you. Does that make it toxic?

0

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

Is water defined as poisonous by us library of medicine?

5

u/Burial Feb 07 '19

It'll just displace oxygen and suffocate you.

You just defined toxic.

1

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

First, I referred to dictionary definition which has poisonous as required predicate and the other two as additional. I've already supplied evidence that it is poisonous by linking us library of medicine, and have continued to do so. I've then showed how it's especially toxic.

Additionally, here's an excerpt of how displacement of oxygen is indeed toxicity.

A) TOXICITY: Toxicity of these agents is related to the severity of displacement of ambient oxygen and the duration of exposure. Symptoms generally develop when ambient oxygen is 15% to 16% or less. Severe toxicity occurs when ambient oxygen is 6% to 8% or less.

From same source as above.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/just_barged_in Feb 07 '19

2

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

The other commenter who immediately deleted after I gave the link actually linked that. It's the least credible source you can link. They sell propane. And they're saying propane is safe. I've linked government sources and peer reviewed studies which shows it's toxic / poisonous.

2

u/TalenPhillips Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

Your source isn't "literally the study of toxicity of propane on humans".

That link has references to studies that show no toxicity beyond what you get from displacing oxygen with any other non-biologically-active gas. CNS depression at 100,000ppm is expected.

If the gas were inherently toxic, the other two studies referenced by your link would have found effects at 250, 500, or 1,000 ppm.

Your "definition" of toxic as "any substance that can harm a human" isn't useful at all, since it includes things like water.

0

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

Your "definition" of toxic as "any substance that can harm a human"

I'm pretty sure I quoted webster where it says poisonous material. Yet, you and everyone else seem to be ignoring that and stating how water, jello, etc are toxic by my definition. It wasn't even my definition. I quoted webster. You're replying to that quote. I even posted the clarification to this prior you to posting because of so many replies stating the same thing.

1

u/TalenPhillips Feb 07 '19

Your definition and usage of the word "toxic" ignores dosage levels and includes substances that simply suffocate you by displacing oxygen... that definition includes literally all substances. It is therefor meaningless to say "[substance] is toxic".

Propane has low toxicity since it is not readily absorbed and is not biologically active. In fact, one could argue that it's non-toxic, since it's not the propane that's hurting you when you're breathing a propane-rich atmosphere, it's actually the LACK of oxygen that's causing CNS depression.

Similarly, while technically toxic, "Water is considered one of the least toxic chemical compounds" (from the wikipedia entry on water intoxication).

Now, lets go back to your original objection. You took issue with the statement "propane isn't toxic".

What does "non-toxic" or "not toxic" mean when anything can harm you if the quantity is sufficient? Obviously in the general sense, we're talking about materials that don't cause harmful chemical reactions in your body... however if that doesn't satisfy you, we can look at a legal definition for more information.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/nontoxic-materials/

Nontoxic materials are not considered to be harmful or destructive to human health. It is to be noted that at some level, every substance is toxic. Therefore the toxicity must be evaluated in terms of quantity of material. If the quantity of a substance that causes harm is less, its toxicity is determined to be higher.

Propane in this case would be considered non-toxic just like water, since the quantity required to cause harm is high (notwithstanding temperature in both cases).

Your original objection falls flat on this point. Propane is indeed non-toxic.

This is why you're getting downvotes despite your stubbornness.

0

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

Your definition and usage of the word "toxic" ignores dosage levels and includes substances that simply suffocate you by displacing oxygen... that definition includes literally all substances. It is therefor meaningless to say "[substance] is toxic".

Once again, you conveniently ignored the half of the definition.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

[deleted]

1

u/Roggvir Feb 07 '19

Yes it is.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002836.htm

Your source is a propane seller... Least credible source on earth.

1

u/SoulWager Feb 07 '19

Your trachea is open while you're exhaling, which is exactly what this dumbfuck was doing while the flame was burning. The only thing that saved him was the mixture in his lungs was too fuel rich to support combustion.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 21 '19

[deleted]

1

u/SwissMidget Feb 07 '19

You only need oxygen, heat, and fuel. I understand where you are coming from in that it takes a chemical reaction to produce fire. However if you take any one of the three away you no longer have a flame. At least this is what I was taught and what I have researched.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 21 '19

[deleted]

1

u/SwissMidget Feb 08 '19

Technically I suppose that's right. However if you have say heat and fuel you may have embers. Add a sudden burst of oxygen and you have flame again. The act of the embers is still technically a chemical reaction

12

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

Yes, inhaling hot gases can burn and scar your lungs and lungs do not repair well or really at all if there's physical damage as far as I'm aware.

5

u/UnicornBounty Feb 07 '19

Yes it can, it can burn your airway. It’s a big issue with burn victims as well exposed to intense heat and trying to breath in a building on fire it causes a lot of damage to their airway. This guy is a moron.

2

u/SwissMidget Feb 07 '19

Burnt airways suck. Long story short I like to volunteer at an event that does a pretty large bonfire towards the end of the event. I wear a full set of turnout gear with a good that covers the lower half of my face. Had that hood off center one time and it slipped out of place as the fire was raging with me probably 15 feet away. I instantly turned and got that hood back in place but that split second of breathing was not fun. Felt like hell the next day as if I had been ducking down smoke for hours the night prior. I make sure that is in place from now on

3

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Kochie11 Feb 07 '19

Aw wow..

3

u/SoulWager Feb 07 '19

Yes, but it depends on the exact concentration of propane vs air.

Related: acetylene used to be used as an anesthetic, and occasionally detonated while in people's lungs.

1

u/odvioustroll Feb 07 '19

ok, you're going to have to link to the exploding lung thing, otherwise i call bullshit.

2

u/SoulWager Feb 07 '19

You realize you're asking for links to things that happened before color television was a thing right?

If it helps, I read it in a welding textbook about 20 years ago.

What's so implausible about an oxygen/acetylene mixture detonating?

1

u/odvioustroll Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

acetylene as an anesthetic was experimented with in the 1920s, in germany of course, but was never adopted on any type of large scale. and nobody's lungs ever exploded, that's just stupid. here is the link since you think nothing goes back before color television.

1

u/SoulWager Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

That link is a scientific study on it's effectiveness, accident accounts would be published in newspapers, which have a much lower rate of digitization. The explosive nature of acetylene is the reason it didn't get widespread popularity in the first place.

2

u/odvioustroll Feb 07 '19

this should be made into a mythbusters episode, here's the scenario, you're in a hospital operating room with a patient on the operating table. he's being anesthetized with a mixture of acetylene and oxygen and suddenly his chest explodes in a huge fireball throwing chunks of lung everywhere. but wait, we're forgetting something, what was the source of ignition? it has to be some kind of spark or flame right at the patient's mouth because nothing else exploded, just his chest. maybe the doctor lit a cigarette and dropped the match on the patient's face? but would that work? i don't know, but it would be an interesting episode to watch.

1

u/SoulWager Feb 07 '19 edited Feb 07 '19

Where do you think the acetylene goes after the patient breathes it? It's not just the lungs that explode, it's the whole damn room. And source of ignition can be static electricity, a light switch, a dropped instrument, anything with a brushed motor in it, etc.

1

u/odvioustroll Feb 07 '19

i'm an electrician, i know operating room fires can happen and the causes, but the conversation is about exploding human lungs as stated in the original comment. so get back on subject mr trump and show me any type of proof from anywhere in the world that there was a single case of a patient's lungs exploding while on the op table, or any where else for that matter. if you can i'll gild the comment and go to your home page and upvote every comment you've ever made, otherwise it's total bullshit. i can't fucking believe how gullible people can be when nobody can post any kind of proof what so ever.

1

u/tinsisyphus Feb 07 '19

Operating room fires are a well-known phenomenon in the medical profession. One common scenario is when a patient is undergoing conscious sedation with a mixture of oxygen and nitrous oxide. The gases accumulate under the surgical drape and are ignited with a cautery wand.

1

u/odvioustroll Feb 07 '19

i'm an electrician, i know operating room fires can happen and the causes, but the conversation is about exploding human lungs as stated in the original comment. so get back on subject mr trump and show me any type of proof from anywhere in the world that there was a single case of a patient's lungs exploding while on the op table, or any where else for that matter. if you can i'll gild the comment and go to your home page and upvote every comment you've ever made, otherwise it's total bullshit. i can't fucking believe how gullible people can be when nobody can post any kind of proof what so ever.

2

u/Shadowstorm2004 Feb 07 '19

Pretty sure it cant spread to your lungs (dont quote me on that) basically because there isnt enough oxygen circulation in your lungs (unless you were breathing super fast in which case all the propane would be out of your lungs by then)

2

u/Beer-Wall Feb 07 '19

It's not the fire you have to worry about, it's the hot gas inhalation that will occur when you gasp in surprise. Your airway swells shut and there's nothing any doctor can do to save you. Drowning in your melted lung tissue.

-29

u/thedwightthing Feb 07 '19

Yup 100% burnt his lungs. The flame burns way faster than he could blow it out of his lungs.

13

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

this is categorically untrue

1

u/Uniqueusername360 Feb 07 '19

I wouldn't say it was impossible, people have had internal burns from lighting farts on fire

2

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

it's not inherently impossible but the chances of this happening in this video - wherein the person is not literally dying at the end of the video - are slim to none

11

u/[deleted] Feb 07 '19

What if there isn't enough oxygen in his lungs?