The NET Interview Cycle Helpline

[Sibling Chatty]

TOPIC??

We don't need no stinkin' topic!!

[anthrobabe]

we're interviewing victims officer candidates today

- I love to torture them, I get to be the one that has them fill out their fingerprint cards and then run them through ACIC, I like to make funny faces and snigger and it makes them squirm "What did she find?" sort of thing.


wait do we really stay on topic somewhere- like 100% of the time and all?

Bingo!
one of our candidates decided to ummmm - update his F-4 after being poked at by me--- turns out he had failed to list a previous issue that would be relevant- but didn't list because surely they can't find out about that.....all from lil old me giving him they 'eye'

so evil
Oh I'm so evil.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

wait do we really stay on topic somewhere- like 100% of the time and all?

I think the best we've managed is a few pages back when Mr. Eugenics was floating around.

[anthrobabe]

should have been eugene eugenics and not......


Oh- math is driving me insane and it is something that I should get - I feel it - someone is going to say ok here is how and I'm going to say

_______ I knew that

[Griffin NoName]

What's all this talk of Christmas? Do you constantly talk about the end of August in mid-July? No, I thought not.

[Aggie]

Heck, I was talking about mid-September/October constantly since the PREVIOUS October.  Bad habit....

[Griffin NoName]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

OK, I'll revive this one because...

3. Are you afraid of fire or water? Which one would you choose, if you had to, for an unpleasant experience
Provided I would survive, I would choose water (very unpleasant experiences with fire leave major scars).  Provided I wouldn't survive.... I would choose water.  Drowning sounds less painful.   I have an affinity for and a high comfort level with both, but have been in more scary situations with water and am confident of my abilities to get out of most situations (I'm still here). I'm a strong swimmer and can travel at least 50 m underwater (linear, not depth) without surfacing for breath.

Regardless of how hard is to be rational about it (and that that may have been the intention), I want to try:
Questions:
What form of asphyxia is quicker, smoke or water? And, how are those numbers affected by you fighting to avoid dying asphyxiated?

With some training I can spend about 2+ minutes under water, but those 2' will be of sheer terror trying to find air or worse, knowing there is no air around. Then (with the pleasure of water in your lungs) comes sweet sweet asphyxia.

Now the alternative is smoke and possible burns...

Choices, choices...

Wouldn't fire be quicker but perhaps more painful?

[Aggie]

Smoke inhalation sounds nasty....  and might not be that quick.  I suspect that water is more quickly fatal because the first lungful would do it, whereas smoke inhalation is death by toxic gases. The burns are the decider for me....  in water you're basically going to be comfortable except for that air situation.  And you DO have the option to end it any time by taking a lungful.  I suspect I'd probably go into a shallow water blackout before taking that lungful, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shallow_water_blackout
(after I read this I quit hyperventilating before doing underwater-distance swims)

Personally, being trapped underwater would be panic (urgency of getting to air, but being basically 'safe' otherwise) whereas being trapped in an inferno would be terror (horror at the situation, plus the urgency of getting out, plus probable heat-related pain even if you're not actually burning).

I suppose to really consider the fire option, you've got to take it in the context of immolation, not just being trapped in an inferno.  That has to be PAIN (I cannot fathom how one would make the choice to use self-immolation as a form of protest / suicide).

[Griffin NoName]

I think this question can be answered by studying the forms of punishment used over the centuries for various crimes. Burning martyrs v. dunking witches for example. Also Saxon ones: carrying burning metal was a lesser punishment than plunging arm into boiling water......

[Swatopluk]

People often die in fires from smoke poisoning while asleep. It is said that death on the stake depended on the wind and the humidity of the wood. From what I read this was seen as another indicator of guilt or innocence. If the smoke was blown away from the victim (leading to agonizing death by roasting), it was seen as divine approval of guilt. If on the other hand the smoke was drawn towards the victim (leading to a quick death or at least unconsciousness through smoke and lack of oxygen), it was seen as an indicator of possible innocence. That's the same perverse logic as the water test*: drowned=innocent.
I hear that the least painful death is being immersed in an atmosphere with no oxygen but just inert gases (nitrogen, noble gases, Freon** etc.)***.

*This test was already known in ancient Mesopotamia but there it was drowned=guilty, survival=innocence.
**This is usually combined with shock freezing
***sitting on an exploding nuke may qualify too but we have unsufficient data on that

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

People often die in fires from smoke poisoning while asleep. It is said that death on the stake depended on the wind and the humidity of the wood. From what I read this was seen as another indicator of guilt or innocence. If the smoke was blown away from the victim (leading to agonizing death by roasting), it was seen as divine approval of guilt. If on the other hand the smoke was drawn towards the victim (leading to a quick death or at least unconsciousness through smoke and lack of oxygen), it was seen as an indicator of possible innocence. That's the same perverse logic as the water test*: drowned=innocent.
I hear that the least painful death is being immersed in an atmosphere with no oxygen but just inert gases (nitrogen, noble gases, Freon** etc.)***.

*This test was already known in ancient Mesopotamia but there it was drowned=guilty, survival=innocence.
**This is usually combined with shock freezing
***sitting on an exploding nuke may qualify too but we have unsufficient data on that

Massive exposure to hard radiation works, too.  But it must be huge-- a little radiation will kill you slowly and painfully over time. 

Natural gas is also inert to humans, and causes suffocation.  As does CO2.   Unfortunately (or fortunately) in the US, Natural Gas is contaminated with mercaptain which makes it smell terrible.   And occasionally, there are trace elements of sulfurous compounds, too, which also stink.   But, the stink itself is harmless-- just uncomfortable.

Flammable fumes can be suffocating, too.  Too high a concentration of gasoline or paint thinner fumes can lead to suffocation--but usually before that happens, the person has passed out from the toxic effects of the chemicals in the bloodstream.   Death is swift in that case.

I recall reading about a pair of painters, who had enclosed the room in plastic sheeting. They were working with oil-based paints, and didn't want to disturb the finish with a ventilation device.... dust specks, y'know.   

Anyway, they had covered the windows (to protect the finish on the trim) and the doorways (same reason) and the floors.  What they inadvertently did was create a giant plastic bag.... and worked inside it.  They were found unconscious.   One died on the way to the ER, the other one died later, never waking up from a deep coma. 

They appeared to not have suffered.   Who knows?  They certainly didn't say anything...

[Aggie]

And occasionally, there are trace elements of sulfurous compounds, too, which also stink.   But, the stink itself is harmless-- just uncomfortable.

!!!  Harmless?  Not if it's direct outta the ground....  H₂S isn't exactly harmless, even in trace amounts.  You're correct in one way - if you stop smelling the stink, THAT'S when it's dangerous (H₂S in dangerous concentration deadens the smell receptors, so when you stop smelling it you're in trouble).

Not relevant if we're discussing sales gas out of your household pipes, but 'round oil country it's not unusual to run into sour pipelines throughout the countryside.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

And occasionally, there are trace elements of sulfurous compounds, too, which also stink.   But, the stink itself is harmless-- just uncomfortable.

!!!  Harmless?  Not if it's direct outta the ground....  H₂S isn't exactly harmless, even in trace amounts.  You're correct in one way - if you stop smelling the stink, THAT'S when it's dangerous (H₂S in dangerous concentration deadens the smell receptors, so when you stop smelling it you're in trouble).

Not relevant if we're discussing sales gas out of your household pipes, but 'round oil country it's not unusual to run into sour pipelines throughout the countryside.

In the concentrations most often found in natural gas as delivered....harmless.    I suppose I should have been more specific.

And, you're correct-- "sour gas" can be found here in Oklahoma.  Back in the day, they used to just burn that off.... (incidentally adding to acid rain, but that's another thing...)

Nowadays?  I imagine they chemically process it to reduce the sulfur compounds.  What with the cost of gas an'all. 

[Swatopluk]

Oil and gas are actually the main sources for sulphur today. Roast gases and natural sulphur deposits have only limited market shares.
Some sulphur compounds are smellable at concentration in the ppt range.
Btw, coffee aroma consists of hundreds of compounds, many of them sulphuric and many of them highly toxic (but diluted enough to be of negligible risk). My chem teacher at school told us that during his university time they produced a small amount of one especially smelly sulphur compound. Despite the flue filters it stank at least a mile around the building.