Russian Sub 'accident'

Doesn't using a highly toxic gas as an extinguishing agent rather defeat the object?

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Doesn't using a highly toxic gas as an extinguishing agent rather defeat the object?

No. The object was to prevent damage to the hardware.

If the object was to prevent loss of life, they would have used FM200

Fact me 'til I fart.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Doesn't using a highly toxic gas as an extinguishing agent rather defeat the object?

There's not much you can do about it. To extinguish a fire, you need to exclude oxygen. They likely died from asphyxiation, not poisoning (although some extinguishing agents are poisonous as well).

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Doesn't using a highly toxic gas as an extinguishing agent rather defeat the object?

There's not much you can do about it. To extinguish a fire, you need to exclude oxygen. They likely died from asphyxiation, not poisoning (although some extinguishing agents are poisonous as well).

FM200

quote:

Originally posted by Jim Lawson:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
Doesn't using a highly toxic gas as an extinguishing agent rather defeat the object?

There's not much you can do about it. To extinguish a fire, you need to exclude oxygen. They likely died from asphyxiation, not poisoning (although some extinguishing agents are poisonous as well).

FM200

Fair enough. These complex HFC agents are falling out of favour in various regulatory environments (greenhouse effect, carcinogenic risk), but I am admittedly speaking out of my @r$e w.r.t. the sub accident as I have no clue what they used. I am simply guessing that as the accidental discharge killed people, it did so by excluding oxygen, rather than by poisoning.

CO2 is interesting as it works by excluding oxygen, but induces a severe and potentially fatal respiratory reaction as well. Nasty over a few percent.

It was Freon that asphyxiated them. It is not a toxic agent at room temperature, other than at staggering concentrations, but breaks down at high temperatures to hydrogenated halogens.

In my submarine days (1980s), we would get 'freon bursts' tolerably often from the refrigeration plants but these were no problem to the non-smokers of the crew. Smokers would find that passage of the freon through a lit cigarette broke it down to HCl and HBr - sufficient respiratory irritants to make them stub out their cigarettes until the burst was cleared.

Although Freon is toxic at high temperatures and concentrations, I can't see being poisoned as much worse than being asphyxiated!

Fraser

Thanks Fraser!

Anyway.

Back to topic.

I'll think I'll politely decline the invite to lunch with my MP for the forseeable future... (This is after last night's episode for the benefit of you oversea'ers)

A reasoned account of what may well have happened to the Nerpa.

fraser,

are you saying that you could smoke while on a submarine? somehow that seems crazy. you can't even smoke in a bar here in seattle.

csl,

I am indeed. This was so in my era - the 1980's - and it used to drive us non-smokers made. We even had specific CO/H2 burners to rid the enclosed atmosphere of CO. The burners burnt it to CO2 which was then removed in the same way as exhaled CO2.

I don't know what regulations prevail today.

Fraser