Talk:Asphyxiant gas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Question[edit]

Way outside my expertise, but surely all non-toxic gases except oxygen are asphyxiant under the definition given? Cheers, Sam Clark 21:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

agree. Article will remain a stub or become a list of all non-toxic gasses. Either way is not optimal. Widefox 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate for deletion, on that basis. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've looked again, this material is getting better, but still a stub, and belongs as a section in Asphyxia. The crucial point is that an Asphyxiant gas is not a gas property or classification. Asphyxia is the issue, and a gas is cause. Asphyxiant gas will redirect to Asphyxia. That should be part of the move. Widefox 00:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is special knowledge to be collected about the use, storage, and handling of potentially asphyxiant gas (such as compressed helium) which makes this article worthwhile to keep. InvictaHOG 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

confined spaces vs inflated spaces[edit]

"Typically asphyxiant gases are dangerous in confined spaces[1], is not supported by reference. Reference [1] details a balloon inflated with asphyxiant gas, not a breathable space with a mixture of escaped gas, as in your examples. These are two distinct cases. Both of which are valid, but both require separate references as assertions made in one do not necessarily hold in the other (gas densities, mixing etc). Taking this to the extreme - whereas it's always fatal to breath 100% non oxygen gas (for long enough), in a confined space releasing some asphyxiant gas might not be dangerous at all, because all the original oxygen is still there (confined space remember). Widefox 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Asphyxiant gases in mining unreferenced (Zonguldak, Turkey is bad ref.)[edit]

  • OMG - they have > 15 mining fatalities per year in Turkey (officially).
  • anyhow...
  • ref [1] has no mention of Asphyxiant gases. The only gas deaths refer to methane, as a poison, not an Asphyxiant gas. So this is clearly out of place. I moved this reference to mining accident as reference for toxic gas.Widefox 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Kucuker H. Occupational fatalities among coal mine workers in Zonguldak, Turkey, 1994-2003. Occup Med (Lond). 2006 Mar;56(2):144-6. PMID 16490795
The reference clearly mentions that most of the deaths were due to asphyxiation. Take a look at the abstract (where this is stated), and then trying reading the full text. I have reinstated it. InvictaHOG 15:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, I read the whole text (2 pages if I remember correctly). I've clearly laid out my comment, and I stick by it there is no mention of asphyxiant gas. More than that, if I remember correctly, most deaths were due to asphyxia (hence I moved the ref to asphyxia), and the only gas mentioned killed by poisoning, not asphyxiation, so it was a confusing reference. Do we now need an article called Asphyxiant solids for when mining roofs fall in? sorry, but this is going too far! Widefox 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Previously to your question, I have rewritten the article to attempt to clarify by structuring based on circumstance, which should allow us to fill-out these distinct scenarios, which are all. Widefox 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Widefox 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about "POV" balance mentioned in edit summary[edit]

I would like clarification as to what the perceived POV is with this article. I'm not sure how it's possible to have a POV about inert gases, but let me know if there's something obvious that we need to work on! InvictaHOG 15:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Adding to the little I wrote on your talk page, the original article (written by a vandal BTW), hence how I came across it, was very alarmist. It needed a major refocussing as without Asphyxiant gases we can't breath. It's a half full/half empty POV thing. Widefox 16:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Summary - we are talking about the gases and not Asphyxia!Widefox 16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Asphyxia?[edit]

I removed this, as it seems to fit better with Asphyxia, and I couldn't get it to fit here, but I could be wrong, so here it is:

  • Exhausting a limited air supply - depleting with oxygen exhalation, but crucially replacing with exhalents[citation needed]
    • exhausting , resulting in the replacement of oxygen and the build-up of exhalation gas {{Fact}} , or avalanches.[1]

Widefox 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation to asphyxia[edit]

I do not understand the disambiguation to asphyxia. This is quite different from the typical use of a disambiguation link where there are other possible encyclopedia article with the same name. That is not the case in this instance. Asphyxia is already linked in the opening paragraph and better belongs in a see also link than as a disambiguation link for an ambiguity which does not exist. I move to delete the disambig and add a see also link. I will go ahead in the next few days unless there are objections. InvictaHOG 00:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I object. It needs disambiguating for 1 simple reason. The terms asphyxiant gas and asphyxiant are almost equivalent. Gas articles refer to themselves, and link to asphyxiant! if we allow asphyxiant gas then we also need liquids, solids, etc. It is only OK on asphyxia. wikipedia is not a dictionary. This strong link is needed, delete or no delete! Widefox 01:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing the issue. You are arguing here for deletion, not for the disambiguation link. They are no more equivalent than pneumonia, walking pneumonia, aspiration pneumonia, eosinophilic pneumonia, ad nauseum. It is not common to link a disambiguation at the top of a page for a compound word which happens to have another word within it. This is not a "subarticle" of a "main article." Any link to asphyxia should be in either see also or simply within the text. If you wouldn't mind, please focus on the disambiguation and leave the debate about the existence of the article to the deletion page (or another section on the talk page). InvictaHOG 02:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

With respect, you asked for objections, I gave you one. Please don't discount it. The term only relates to asphyxia, hence main article. The overlap/duplication of asphyxiant gas examples and those at asphyxia is also clear, and requires disambiguation, as I have done in other articles. Deletion or not, that is clear. Additionally, please see WP:WINAD as to why this article currently is of little merit, and needs disambiguation. Widefox 12:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I am dismayed at your lack of communication - not only have you failed to respond to an attempt at compromise (such as a see also link) but have actually added without discussion another identical disambiguation link within the text and a separate one for Davy Lamp. Again, I dispute your claim that this is a subsection of asphyxia and have myself provided examples of similar articles for you to review. To these, I add erotic asphyxia, strangling, and positional asphyxia. These do not have disambiguation links to asphyxia. I feel that your use of the disambiguation links in this manner is atypical. I understand that you are of the opinion that asphyxiant gas belongs within asphyxia. However, this is most certainly a POV and your POV is currently the one which is prominently displayed on the page despite my attempts to engage you in conversation and compromise. Discussion about deletion should remain on the AfD page or a separate section of this talk page. InvictaHOG 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I have justified and talked extensively. I just don't agree with you, and I'm not the only one, so for the rest of us, this disambiguation is useful. You must admit that I've even been very generous considering my opinion on the validity of the page, which I've made clear from the start. I was curious as to whether it had any merit, so I went with it. The duplication of information is IMHO not in itself so bad - I've never said the article has no merit, it is an important safety issue (that I've had myself), just that it's (currently) better in the main article with the already listed asphyxiant gas examples! And you misjudge me, I'm guilty of using extensive disambiguations myself, as the general reader does not know about parent articles unless they are spelled out. And when it comes to medical/emergency issues, I know that I feel better to err on the cautious side (think someone quickly flicking through in a panic) - the standard I'm holding this page to is the exactly the same standard I use with my pages (see hornet and European hornet) with similar issues (and independently that I've seen on other pages). Widefox 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Widefox is correct that the terms asphyxiant gas and asphyxiant are almost equivalent. For this reason I have changed the asphyxiant redirect to point to asphyxiant gas. Beyond that, I agree with InvictaHOG that there is no reason for the disambig hatnote and it should be removed. Nurg (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ Grissom CK, Radwin MI, Harmston CH, Hirshberg EL, Crowley TJ.Respiration during snow burial using an artificial air pocket. JAMA. 2000 May 3;283(17):2266-71. PMID 10807386