Unutterably sad. Unutterably senseless.

"Nev" wrote in message

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help

but

see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people

stayed

outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

When you’re hooked, you’re like the frozen deer staring at the oncoming headlights.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:34:46 -0500, "Ron" wrote:

"Nev" wrote in message

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help

but

see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people

stayed

outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

When you’re hooked, you’re like the frozen deer staring at the oncoming headlights.

I remember being in the Sloan Kettering cancer hospital in NYC, and seeing recovering lung cancer patients remove their oxygen mask in the lounge room so they could smoke a cigarette.Not only continuing with the habit that was killing them, but risking immolation from the combination of pure oxygen and sparks form the cigarette. Nasty.

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:34:46 -0500, "Ron" wrote:

"Nev" wrote in message

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help

but

see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people

stayed

outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

When you’re hooked, you’re like the frozen deer staring at the oncoming headlights.

Was he a Photoshop user?

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:46:20 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:34:46 -0500, "Ron" wrote:

"Nev" wrote in message

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help

but

see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people

stayed

outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

When you’re hooked, you’re like the frozen deer staring at the oncoming headlights.

I remember being in the Sloan Kettering cancer hospital in NYC, and seeing recovering lung cancer patients remove their oxygen mask in the lounge room so they could smoke a cigarette.Not only continuing with the habit that was killing them, but risking immolation from the combination of pure oxygen and sparks form the cigarette. Nasty.

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 05:35:01 GMT, (ZONED!)
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:46:20 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:34:46 -0500, "Ron" wrote:

"Nev" wrote in message

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help

but

see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people

stayed

outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

When you’re hooked, you’re like the frozen deer staring at the oncoming headlights.

I remember being in the Sloan Kettering cancer hospital in NYC, and seeing recovering lung cancer patients remove their oxygen mask in the lounge room so they could smoke a cigarette.Not only continuing with the habit that was killing them, but risking immolation from the combination of pure oxygen and sparks form the cigarette. Nasty.

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

Oxygen is not flammable

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

Oxygen is not flammable

A super oxygenated lit cigarette is a virtual incinerating device. Pure oxygen being sucked into the lungs will carry a flame from a cigarette right into the lungs and fry them.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:49:40 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

Oxygen is not flammable

A super oxygenated lit cigarette is a virtual incinerating device.

Incinerating? As in burning something to ashes? Besides I said that O2 was not flammable. I did not say, nor did I insinuate, that ANY oxidizer (including O2 obviously) will not support combustion in the presence of an ignition source along with a fuel source.

What does "super oxygenated" mean? Is there a reliable definition on line?
How does one "super oxygenate" a cigarette?
Why would someone "super oxygenate" a cigarette? You do realize that "virtual" basically means, "not really", right?

Pure oxygen being sucked into the lungs will carry a flame from a cigarette right into the lungs and fry them.

This flame will burn right past all the tobbacco, additives AND filter in most cases, to instantly turn the lungs into ashes? Or would one have to inhale these flames over a several hour period? Any legitimate support on line?

"ZONED!" posted:
"…
Oxygen is not flammable
…."

Wrong … you failed basic chemistry?

Pure oxygen … as a gas … is **very** flammable.

Pure oxygen … as a liquid (LOX) … is virtually **EXPLOSIVE**.

..

RSD99 wrote:

"ZONED!" posted:
"…
Oxygen is not flammable
…"

Wrong … you failed basic chemistry?

He didn’t. You did.

Pure oxygen … as a gas … is **very** flammable.

Pure oxygen … as a liquid (LOX) … is virtually **EXPLOSIVE**.

It’s not the oxygen that is flammable. It’s the other materials which form a chemical reaction with oxygen (and that is called ‘burning’).

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:13:26 GMT, (ZONED!)
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Oxygen is not flammable

After a bit of research, I’m apparently mistaken, and retract my error (if possible). These folks should go on smoking after having a lung out, since they aren’t at risk of burning because of the oxygen. 😉 It’s an oxidant, not a fuel.

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:49:40 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

Oxygen is not flammable

A super oxygenated lit cigarette is a virtual incinerating device.

Incinerating? As in burning something to ashes? Besides I said that O2 was not flammable. I did not say, nor did I insinuate, that ANY oxidizer (including O2 obviously) will not support combustion in the presence of an ignition source along with a fuel source.
What does "super oxygenated" mean? Is there a reliable definition on line?
How does one "super oxygenate" a cigarette?
Why would someone "super oxygenate" a cigarette? You do realize that "virtual" basically means, "not really", right?

Pure oxygen being sucked into the lungs will carry a flame from a

cigarette

right into the lungs and fry them.

This flame will burn right past all the tobbacco, additives AND filter in most cases, to instantly turn the lungs into ashes? Or would one have to inhale these flames over a several hour period? Any legitimate support on line?

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:05:44 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:13:26 GMT, (ZONED!)
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Oxygen is not flammable

After a bit of research, I’m apparently mistaken, and retract my error (if possible). These folks should go on smoking after having a lung out, since they aren’t at risk of burning because of the oxygen. 😉 It’s an oxidant, not a fuel.

Not a problem :o)
The flamability of oxygen is a popular misconception. Although I am fairly new (usually just lurking) in this group. I am usually found in rec.pyro… I have been licensed for awhile now.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:44:06 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

Scruff wrote:

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:15:05 -0500, Roy Petersen <> wrote:

Huh? I realize what immolation, pure oxygen and sparks are. Are you saying that the embers bursting into flame would instantly kill someone? How did that get lit to begin with if not a similar flame?

The oxygen comes from a tank, and if the spark was to ignite the oxygen coming from the end of the tube, they could ignite the oxygen source. Yes, they had to light the cigarette from a flame, but they would probably be more careful with that than while smoking the butt. It wouldn’t be the sparks that burned them, but the oxygen…

Oxygen is not flammable

A super oxygenated lit cigarette is a virtual incinerating device. Pure oxygen being sucked into the lungs will carry a flame from a cigarette right into the lungs and fry them.

A burning cigarette put in pure oxygen will in most cases burn very quickly with a bright flame – that’s all.

Breathing in a 100% oxygen atmosphere will usually not harm you for a short time but make you dizzy as you body’s CO2 monitoring will fail after several minutes.

Even direct contact to a flame in the given 100% oxygen atmosphere will not ignite human flesh as there is still 80% water in your body.

Can you specify which substance that is in the human lungs while you breath will be oxidized and generate enough heat to dissipate the water from body tissue to allow "burning to ashes"?

The tobacco smoke (if you are able to inhale anything before the cigarette has burned down) in a 100% oxigen atmosphere contains only CO2 and other fully oxidized substances, that means they are no longer able to burn.

You can have fantastic effects when pouring liquid Oxigen over burning substances but that is a very different thing and has nothing to do with the nonsense you wrote.

Michael

RSD99 wrote:

"ZONED!" posted:
"…
Oxygen is not flammable
…"

Wrong … you failed basic chemistry?

You too it seems.

Pure oxygen … as a gas … is very flammable.

You are wrong.

Pure oxygen is usually marked flammable not because it _is_ flammable but because other, flammable things react with oxygen and do so more intensively when there is a higher amount of oxygen than the usual atmospherical 20%.

Pure oxygen … as a liquid (LOX) … is virtually EXPLOSIVE.

The fantastic effects of LOX poured over combustibles (usually already burning) come from the rapid burning of those – not from the oxygen itself.

A piece of coal that burns needs twice it’s weight in oxygen to completely burn to CO2. When burning normally it takes some time to transport that amount of oxygen by moving air.
If you pour LOX over the piece of coal, the whole reaction can take part in fractions of a second, creating the same mass of CO2 as the normal burning, expanding quickly because of the heat. But then: The coal explodes and burns, not the LOX.And that most of your experimenting devices burned too, including iron grilles is a result of them being combustibles in a oxygen rich atmosphere.

Michael

Nev wrote:

I recently attended a memorial service for a colleague who died from esophageal (throat) cancer. His four adult children barely managed to get out bits of eulogizing for their all too suddenly gone father. A long time buddy gave the main eulogy; by turns funny and poignant.
This was a "cigarette funeral" as I call them now. As the box of his ashes was carried down the aisle at the service’s conclusion, I couldn’t help but see a ghoulish parallel between his ashes and those of the cigarettes that slowly, painfully and unmercifully killed him.

Cigarettes do not cause cancer.

Uni

Prior to going in for the refreshments that followed, several people stayed outside for a quick smoke first.

Oh. My. God.

There is no misconception.
The ignition source is the burning cigarette, the fuel is the cigarette itself.
The pure oxygen is the accelerant.

Any material that is already burning will burn much faster and hotter in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere.
21% is about the normal percentage of oxygen at sea level, Burn a candle at that percentage, then feed it with 100% oxygen and see what happens. Imagine someone doing the same with a big drag on a cigarette. They get a nice oxygen enhanced burst of flame right into their lungs. Fried lungs. It’s exactly how oxygen/acetylene welding works. The pure oxygen makes the acetylene burn hotter and faster, hot enough to melt steel. If you can’t understand this Go to google and to some research .

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

(Newtown-AP, May 9, 2001 7:55 AM) _ A Newtown woman severely burned in a fire in her home last month has died at Bridgeport Hospital.

Fifty-nine-year-old Maureen Carrigg died at Bridgeport Hospital over the weekend.

She suffered second- and third-degree burns after oxygen feeding the mask that helped her breathe ignited.

She had been in critical condition since being admitted after the April 25th fire.

Fatal Fire Ignites In VA Hospital Room </news/174553.html>

Fire Captain: Patient Smoking While Using Oxygen Tank
Source: WMAQ-TV NBC 5 (Chicago, IL), 2004-08-30
<http://www.nbc5.com/news/3690363/detail.html>

Intro:

A 56-year-old man died early Monday after catching fire as he smoked a cigarette while breathing from an oxygen tank in the west suburb of Hines…

According to hospital staff, the man was smoking in his room at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital in Hines while also breathing air from an oxygen tank, Broadview fire Capt. Ned Thoma said.

The exact cause of the blaze is still under investigation, but apparently the burning cigarette set fire to the oxygen at around 4:43 p.m. Sunday, burning the man and causing a significant amount of damage to the room, Thoma said.

Categories </category/>

"Xalinai" wrote in message
Pure oxygen … as a liquid (LOX) … is virtually EXPLOSIVE.

The fantastic effects of LOX poured over combustibles (usually already burning) come from the rapid burning of those – not from the oxygen itself.

A piece of coal that burns needs twice it’s weight in oxygen to completely burn to CO2. When burning normally it takes some time to transport that amount of oxygen by moving air.
If you pour LOX over the piece of coal, the whole reaction can take part in fractions of a second, creating the same mass of CO2 as the normal burning, expanding quickly because of the heat. But then: The coal explodes and burns, not the LOX.And that most of your experimenting devices burned too, including iron grilles is a result of them being combustibles in a oxygen rich atmosphere.

Michael

It takes oxygen for anything to burn. The less oxygen, the less the rate of combustion. The more oxygen the faster (thus hotter) the rate of burn.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:40:35 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

There is no misconception.

If someone thinks O2 is a flammable gas there IS a misconception.

The ignition source is the burning cigarette, the fuel is the cigarette itself.
The pure oxygen is the accelerant.

Any material that is already burning will burn much faster and hotter in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere.
21% is about the normal percentage of oxygen at sea level, Burn a candle at that percentage, then feed it with 100% oxygen and see what happens. Imagine someone doing the same with a big drag on a cigarette. They get a nice oxygen enhanced burst of flame right into their lungs. Fried lungs.

Got anything legitimate posted on line to support your post? BTW no answers to my questions?

It’s exactly how oxygen/acetylene welding works.\

If that is the case what takes place of the flammable gas acetylene in the first scenario? Or are you comparing lighing a cigarette to igniting acetylene?

The pure oxygen makes the
acetylene burn hotter and faster, hot enough to melt steel. If you can’t understand this Go to google and to some research .

No amount of research anywhere will make O2 flammable Simple.

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:02:21 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

Fatal Fire Ignites In VA Hospital Room </news/174553.html>
Fire Captain: Patient Smoking While Using Oxygen Tank
Source: WMAQ-TV NBC 5 (Chicago, IL), 2004-08-30
<http://www.nbc5.com/news/3690363/detail.html>

Intro:

A 56-year-old man died early Monday after catching fire as he smoked a cigarette while breathing from an oxygen tank in the west suburb of Hines…
According to hospital staff, the man was smoking in his room at the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital in Hines while also breathing air from an oxygen tank, Broadview fire Capt. Ned Thoma said.

The exact cause of the blaze is still under investigation, but apparently the burning cigarette set fire to the oxygen at around 4:43 p.m. Sunday,

Wrong, O2 is not a flammable gas. I do not care how it is misreported.

burning the man and causing a significant amount of damage to the room, Thoma said.

Categories </category/>

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:40:35 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

There is no misconception.
The ignition source is the burning cigarette, the fuel is the cigarette itself.
The pure oxygen is the accelerant.

Any material that is already burning will burn much faster and hotter in an oxygen-enriched atmosphere.
21% is about the normal percentage of oxygen at sea level, Burn a candle at that percentage, then feed it with 100% oxygen and see what happens. Imagine someone doing the same with a big drag on a cigarette. They get a nice oxygen enhanced burst of flame right into their lungs. Fried lungs. It’s exactly how oxygen/acetylene welding works. The pure oxygen makes the acetylene burn hotter and faster, hot enough to melt steel. If you can’t understand this Go to google and to some research .

Like this?
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar99/921736773.Ch.r.ht ml http://www.fbodaily.com/cbd/archive/2001/12(December)/26-Dec-2001/68sol003.htm http://www.catalinacylinders.com/medtravel.html

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

(ZONED!) wrote in message news:…

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:44:06 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

The volatized components of the cigarette become the fuel, and of course the oxygen is the oxidizer. Definitely not a mixture that you would want in your lungs!

Harry C.

On 26 Nov 2004 15:50:10 -0800, (Harry Conover) wrote:

(ZONED!) wrote in message news:…

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:44:06 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

The volatized components of the cigarette become the fuel, and of course the oxygen is the oxidizer. Definitely not a mixture that you would want in your lungs!

Harry C.

I agree wholeheartedly, and definitely not something that I would wish on anyone, unlike Scruff. However, I know you will agree that oxygen is not flammable. I also think you might find it difficult, as I do, to imagine someone actually dragging so hard on a (newly lit as the scenario would insinuate) cigarette in an oxygen rich environment to incinerate the lungs.

I know the thread rambles a bit, but if you look back you will see that I am just asking for clarification, which I didn’t get. I am tired of arguing this topic. I just did not believe what was stated, and thought I might have misunderstood.

Must be too much H2S in my own lungs ;o)

Zoned, you’re so eager to have a debate, that you fail to notice that I have never said oxygen is a flammable gas. Not the type I breathe, anyway. Nor has anyone else.
Everything I’ve posted was copy and pasted from sites about oxygen. Not sure what kind of argument you’re trying to make with yourself, but it’s pretty amusing.

"ZONED!" wrote in message

On 26 Nov 2004 15:50:10 -0800, (Harry Conover) wrote:

(ZONED!) wrote in message

news:…

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:44:06 -0500, "Scruff"
wrote:

Do us all a favor and try it out on yourself.

Why so defensive? I am simply trying to point out a common misconception. I do not need to try it out to know that I am right. I have done a lot of studying of and work with various oxidizers and they must be combined with a fuel and an ignition source to burn.

The volatized components of the cigarette become the fuel, and of course the oxygen is the oxidizer. Definitely not a mixture that you would want in your lungs!

Harry C.

I agree wholeheartedly, and definitely not something that I would wish on anyone, unlike Scruff. However, I know you will agree that oxygen is not flammable. I also think you might find it difficult, as I do, to imagine someone actually dragging so hard on a (newly lit as the scenario would insinuate) cigarette in an oxygen rich environment to incinerate the lungs.

I know the thread rambles a bit, but if you look back you will see that I am just asking for clarification, which I didn’t get. I am tired of arguing this topic. I just did not believe what was stated, and thought I might have misunderstood.

Must be too much H2S in my own lungs ;o)