Darwin Award Contender

TonyCooper

Internaut

I think Resignation might be a better title for this photo.

torags

Incredible

First, good see.

Good capture; difficult to look at - someone in the process of committing suicide.

Makes me think of an old bud (gone now)

TonyCooper

I wonder if all viewers of this understand that those tubes
are connected to a tank of oxygen, and that oxygen is a
highly flammable thing in this form with a lit cigarette that
close.

lensmole

All I see is a sick person, in a wheel chair smoking a cigarette. I can't image anyone wanting to die healthy, and besides he could quit smoking tomorrow and get hit by a bus crossing the road on his wheel chair, causing his death.

torags

TonyCooper wrote: »

I wonder if all viewers of this understand that those tubes
are connected to a tank of oxygen, and that oxygen is a
highly flammable thing in this form with a lit cigarette that
close.

Wow... didn't even think of that

lensmole

TonyCooper wrote: »

I wonder if all viewers of this understand that those tubes
are connected to a tank of oxygen, and that oxygen is a
highly flammable thing in this form with a lit cigarette that
close.

You must of failed chemistry because oxygen is not flammable.

Photogbiker

Semantics...
Oxygen is about the strongest "oxidizer" out there. (oxygen...oxidize, get it?) With a fuel already burning (cigarette) and a compressed tank of oxidizer (oxygen) the high risk of an extremely rapid oxidation (explosion) of the fuel exists. Have fun debating flammable vs. oxidizer, but in either definition smoking while pure oxygen goes into your nose 2" from the flame is a good way to lose your eyebrows....and part of the building.

As far as the health issue and the photo, I think it is a strong statement of despair or resignation as said earlier. Good shot. Looks like a subject that might be worthy of an extended session beyond Street to really understand and show what has brought him to this point.

TonyCooper

lensmole wrote: »

You must of failed chemistry because oxygen is not flammable.

I never took a chemistry course. You're right; oxygen is not
flammable. It is dangerous around flame, though.

lensmole

Photogbiker wrote: »

Oxygen is about the strongest "oxidizer" out there. (oxygen...oxidize, get it?) With a fuel already burning (cigarette) and a compressed tank of oxidizer (oxygen) the high risk of an extremely rapid oxidation (explosion) of the fuel exists. Have fun debating flammable vs. oxidizer, but in either definition smoking while pure oxygen goes into your nose 2" from the flame is a good way to lose your eyebrows....and part of the building.

Oh oxidize! you mean rust ? :bigbs

As far as the health issue and the photo, I think it is a strong statement of despair or resignation as said earlier. Good shot. Looks like a subject that might be worthy of an extended session beyond Street to really understand and show what has brought him to this point.

...

lensmole

TonyCooper wrote: »

I wonder if all viewers of this understand that those tubes
are connected to a tank of oxygen, and that oxygen is a
highly flammable thing in this form with a lit cigarette that
close.

TonyCooper wrote: »

I never took a chemistry course. You're right; oxygen is not
flammable. It is dangerous around flame, though.

Its defiantly makes things burn, but that's how he can smoke the cigarette in the first place. Nothing can burn without oxygen take the tube out of his nose and stick it in the unlit end of his cigarette and all that will happen is, the cigarette will burn up quickly to the filter and stop . The oxygen will not burn! did you get that ? Just thought you might want to know that . Yes I am a viewer and am more than aware of the effects of oxygen in our environment. Sorry,no diabolical explosion.

TonyCooper

lensmole wrote: »

Its defiantly makes things burn, but that's how he can smoke the cigarette in the first place. Nothing can burn without oxygen take the tube out of his nose and stick it in the unlit end of his cigarette and all that will happen is, the cigarette will burn up quickly to the filter and stop . The oxygen will not burn! did you get that ? Just thought you might want to know that . Yes I am a viewer and am more than aware of the effects of oxygen in our environment. Sorry,no diabolical explosion.

I spent my business life (now retired) in medical/surgical equipment sales
and distribution. I'm so used to seeing NO SMOKING signs around oxygen
that I assumed some sort of catastrophic result would result.

Maybe Northwestern University School of Business should add a basic
chemistry course.

RyanS

Unrelated story, but I am compelled to mention it. Feel free to skip this comment.

For a time I worked as a lineman at the airport. It was my job to drive in a fuel truck and load hundreds of pounds of fuel on to aircraft. Accidents and fuel spills did occur. It is a dangerous job. One day a pilot was smoking well within the FAA mandated minimum area while we were fueling his aircraft. A fellow lineman grabbed the fire extinguisher off the truck, pointed it at the man, and let 'er rip. Of course the pilot was upset beyond words. The owner of the operation gave the pilot a few hundred dollars of free fuel. The lineman became legend. No one smoked by the airplanes after that.

I have no idea if the subject in this image is putting himself or others at risk. He may have the O2 turned off. He may have some kind of flash fire prevention mechanism installed. I'm not going to pass judgment. If the O2 were on, and no safety precautions were taken, oxygen flash fires can be quite dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wMRL2bVKc4
http://www.mdsr.ecri.org/summary/detail.aspx?doc_id=8197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Combustion_and_other_hazards

lensmole

RyanS wrote: »

Unrelated story, but I am compelled to mention it. Feel free to skip this comment.

For a time I worked as a lineman at the airport. It was my job to drive in a fuel truck and load hundreds of pounds of fuel on to aircraft. Accidents and fuel spills did occur. It is a dangerous job. One day a pilot was smoking well within the FAA mandated minimum area while we were fueling his aircraft. A fellow lineman grabbed the fire extinguisher off the truck, pointed it at the man, and let 'er rip. Of course the pilot was upset beyond words. The owner of the operation gave the pilot a few hundred dollars of free fuel. The lineman became legend. No one smoked by the airplanes after that.

I have no idea if the subject in this image is putting himself or others at risk. He may have the O2 turned off. He may have some kind of flash fire prevention mechanism installed. I'm not going to pass judgment. If the O2 were on, and no safety precautions were taken, oxygen flash fires can be quite dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wMRL2bVKc4
http://www.mdsr.ecri.org/summary/detail.aspx?doc_id=8197
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Combustion_and_other_hazards

Its really not that complicated to understand Ryan. Have you ever wondered how a fireman can go into a burning building with a self contained breathing apparatus on and not get pooferized ?

torags

Hmmm.... I'm learning stuff

TonyCooper

lensmole wrote: »

Its really not that complicated to understand Ryan. Have you ever wondered how a fireman can go into a burning building with a self contained breathing apparatus on and not get pooferized ?

This is kinda awkward here. I posted what I thought was a photo
of a man connected to an oxygen tank and smoking a cigarette. I
thought the photo was interesting because it showed a man doing
what I thought was something dangerous to himself and to others.
I could be wrong.

The danger of smoking while using medical oxygen is discussed
at http://www.livestrong.com/article/205796-dangers-of-smoking-while-using-oxygen/

Firemen use SCBAs (self-contained breathing apparatus) that are
either open circuit re-breathers or closed circuit systems that
utilize compressed air. Compressed air is only 20.95% oxygen.

Medical oxygen is 83 to 99% oxygen, but it is mixed with
ambient air since the tubes that fit in the nose are not a closed
system.

Forgetting all that, how about we judge the image - if we are
going to judge at all - based on whether or not it's a good
catch of a street scene that we wouldn't expect to see?

RyanS

Tony, I'm glad you picked up on my rather sideways approach. This isn't really a thread about the dangers or non-dangers of smoking while using an O2 nasal cannula. That's a discussion for medical professionals and patients to have. You are right to point out that it isn't really relevant to the image. My only suggestion was that in the image we don't have enough information to know if that is even a relevant point to bring up in discussion about the image at all. So it was really a response to response #4. I need to be honest. I don't feel this is an image that says anything about the potential risk of smoking around O2. My personal feeling is that it is an image of a man smoking while ill. To me, having spent quite a bit of time around a hospital, I filter (no pun intended) this image through those experiences. Seeing patients smoke is such a common occurrence that it seems rather ordinary to me.

As for the technical aspects of the image, I'd like to suggest you watch out for background text behind main subjects. If you wanted to say something about the cigarette, the numbers behind it are quite distracting to the eye (in my opinion). I know it isn't always possible to move. It is what it is. I'd just like to throw that out there for what it is worth.

lensmole

TonyCooper wrote: »

This is kinda awkward here. I posted what I thought was a photo
of a man connected to an oxygen tank and smoking a cigarette. I
thought the photo was interesting because it showed a man doing
what I thought was something dangerous to himself and to others.
I could be wrong.

The danger of smoking while using medical oxygen is discussed
at http://www.livestrong.com/article/205796-dangers-of-smoking-while-using-oxygen/

Firemen use SCBAs (self-contained breathing apparatus) that are
either open circuit re-breathers or closed circuit systems that
utilize compressed air. Compressed air is only 20.95% oxygen.

Medical oxygen is 83 to 99% oxygen, but it is mixed with
ambient air since the tubes that fit in the nose are not a closed
system.

Forgetting all that, how about we judge the image - if we are
going to judge at all - based on whether or not it's a good
catch of a street scene that we wouldn't expect to see?

Good idea . I see a sick person in a wheel chair, smoking a cigarette, and tubes going in his nose that's it. I don't see an oxygen tank or any other gizmo attached to the tubes. So you say he is hooked up to an oxygen tank. Where is the tank that he is supposed to somehow win the Darwin Award with ? Do you have a full version of the image? It might make more sense to some people.

TonyCooper

lensmole wrote: »

Good idea . I see a sick person in a wheel chair, smoking a cigarette, and tubes going in his nose that's it. I don't see an oxygen tank or any other gizmo attached to the tubes. So you say he is hooked up to an oxygen tank. Where is the tank that he is supposed to somehow win the Darwin Award with ? Do you have a full version of the image? It might make more sense to some people.

No, I don't have a full version. Just the upper body. It was a grab
shot in a very crowded area. One of those situations where I didn't
want to push to the front of the crowd to get a different angle.

The only thing that the nasal tubes are used for is oxygen. If the
tank wasn't there, he'd remove the tube.

lensmole

TonyCooper wrote: »

No, I don't have a full version. Just the upper body. It was a grab
shot in a very crowded area. One of those situations where I didn't
want to push to the front of the crowd to get a different angle.

The only thing that the nasal tubes are used for is oxygen. If the
tank wasn't there, he'd remove the tube.

If you say so! but they could be feeding tubes, or suction tubes for various reasons, if the image showed the equipment that the tubes are attached to , I think it would make a stronger image.

Harryb

Reminds me of my mom, a dedicated smoker who would take off her oxygen mask and then retire to the kitchen to enjoy a cig. Interesting picture and a less judgmental title might draw more attention to its photographic merits

TonyCooper

Harryb wrote: »

Reminds me of my mom, a dedicated smoker who would take off her oxygen mask and then retire to the kitchen to enjoy a cig. Interesting picture and a less judgmental title might draw more attention to its photographic merits

Did I mention that I'm a smoker? Started in college when a girl I was
dating smoked. Fifty years later, I can't remember her name and I
still smoke.

Harryb

TonyCooper wrote: »

Did I mention that I'm a smoker? Started in college when a girl I was
dating smoked. Fifty years later, I can't remember her name and I
still smoke.

Irrelevant, the title still gets us into a discussion of smoking as opposed to photography. You would really need the oxygen bottle in the frame or something other than just the cig to get that point across. The title should not be making the point that's the pic's job.

torags

Harryb wrote: »

Irrelevant, the title still gets us into a discussion of smoking as opposed to photography. You would really need the oxygen bottle in the frame or something other than just the cig to get that point across. The title should not be making the point that's the pic's job.

Perhaps not quite. The same photo can move the viewers in different directions.

A title imposed by the photog channels to his direction

The same photo titled by newspaper editors can lead viewers to an entirely different direction

You proved the point here, since I didn't require an oxygen bottle to know the subject was being fed oxygen. Anytime I have seen tubes in noses it's always been oxygen