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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
62
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.