Method Nitrous oxide asphyxiation?

[ham and potatoes]

Hey everyone, I'm not trying to suggest that anyone try this method, I'm just curious if it would even work?
So, allot of the vape/ head shops around sell nitrous tanks "Galaxy gas" for example.
They even make regulators for them and everything.
Just wondering if that would work similar to say nitrogen, but you know, since its laughing gas, be more peaceful?
Thoughts?

 

[opheliaoveragain]

Galaxy Gas has barely any N2O in it. Bad brand.

 

[athiestjoe]

A few things: (1) the brand is not very good but they claim it is 99.9% pure N2O, but I'm a bit doubtful about that. But let's just roll with it for now.

(2) they used to have a 3.3 L tank on their site for $160-ish + tax, or broken down, would equal ~$48.48+ tax per liter. Keeping in mind per the Exit Bag/Inert Gas megathread one would need a flow of 15LPM for 40 minutes (although some might choose 20LPM for 'safety' but for this calc I'll stick to the 15 liters per minute), that would be 600 liters of gas min suggestion. At $48.48/liter, that would be over $29k + then tax out the gate just for the gas, not including the amount of connectors, hosing, etc on top of that. Not sure how much they resell for in head shops. Nor if the head shop would have the number of tanks someone would want for this use, or start to ask questions why a customer in their store wanting that many tanks and spend that much money in their store...might bring about some questions...

Even assuming you had that amount of money, that is also assuming every tank is good, every connection between them is good, and you had that much time, effort, space, and technical know how to pull off.

But yes, in theory and technically that gas would be fine. It would just be far more cost effective and far easier to just buy an intert gas tank of nitrogen (or argon or one of ther other inert gasses discussed)

With whatever you decide, I wish you the best and hope you find peace & serenity.

 

[ham and potatoes]

But yes, in theory and technically that gas would be fine. It would just be far more cost effective and far easier to just buy an intert gas tank of nitrogen (or argon or one of ther other inert gasses discussed)

Thanks, I was just kinda curious as to why I've never seen that option mentioned, with it being as readily available as it is. But I completely get it now that you've done the math on it haha

 

[Intoxicated]

Keeping in mind per the Exit Bag/Inert Gas megathread one would need a flow of 15LPM for 40 minutes (although some might choose 20LPM for 'safety' but for this calc I'll stick to the 15 liters per minute), that would be 600 liters of gas min suggestion.

So far I haven't seen any decent proof that a constant flow of asphyxiant is necessary for CTB at all. PPH/PPeH offered only some vague speculations regarding carbon dioxide, but they didn't mention any real study with testing completely sealed bags filled with nitrogen or other asphyxiants. On the other hand, people really died from asphyxiation with nitrous oxide (be warned of NSFW content accessible through the links below):

Nitrous oxide death - Herman The Shocker

Nitrous oxide is an inflammable gas that gives no smell or taste

www.hermantheshocker.com

Autoerotic death from Whippits nitrous oxide cartridges - Herman The Shocker

Kansas, US. Police were dispatched to an apartment complex at the request of a resident, who advised them that he had discovered his roommate on his bed dead

www.hermantheshocker.com

 

[exitingtothevoid]

So far I haven't seen any decent proof that a constant flow of asphyxiant is necessary for CTB at all. PPH/PPeH offered only some vague speculations regarding carbon dioxide, but they didn't mention any real study with testing completely sealed bags filled with nitrogen or other asphyxiants. On the other hand, people really died from asphyxiation with nitrous oxide (be warned of NSFW content accessible through the links below):

It definitely can work and I think it is a viable option in some situations.

But the attempt itself seems more error prone with this than with using a constant flow of gas. You have to inflate the bag, pull it over your head, and seal it around your neck in a way that is completely airtight. And you have to do all that without getting too much air inside the bag, or letting the gas out, or passing out before the bag is tied airtight around your neck.

The constant flow method is alot more work and expense before the attempt, but with a exit bag it should be easier to actually make the attempt since the neck seal isn't crucial. The sealed bag method seems the opposite, easier to setup before, harder to get right during the attempt. To me it is better to make the work required during the attempt as easy and foolproof as possible.

 

[Intoxicated]

But the attempt itself seems more error prone with this than with using a constant flow of gas. You have to inflate the bag, pull it over your head, and seal it around your neck in a way that is completely airtight. And you have to do all that without getting too much air inside the bag, or letting the gas out, or passing out before the bag is tied airtight around your neck.

Although the method is not fool-proof, all the steps you mentioned above should be easy to do with the right protocol and after training with plain air inside the bag before the real attempt.

The bag should be large enough (I'd choose least 20 L), there should be no long hair on the head, filled bag should be slowly opened when it touches the head, pulling the bag over the head should be done while holding breath after hyperventilation and full exhale (hyperventilation allows long breath holding - for a minute or more that should suffice for good sealing).

A small amount of air entered the bag should not prevent rapid fainting as long as the resulting concentration of O2 after exchange with the residual air in the lungs does not exceed 6%.

The constant flow method is alot more work and expense before the attempt, but with a exit bag it should be easier to actually make the attempt since the neck seal isn't crucial. The sealed bag method seems the opposite, easier to setup before, harder to get right during the attempt. To me it is better to make the work required during the attempt as easy and foolproof as possible.

A huge cylinder with an inert gas may be difficult to hide from other people and difficult to carry to the preferred place of CTB due to the weight and the size.

Which method is more reliable is debatable. With a completely sealed bag I'd be sure that the percent of oxygen inside only goes down and a relatively big force is needed to allow entering of ambient air there. A bag with holes designed for purging expelled gases doesn't seem so secure, you have to rely on maintaining the right flow rate despite possible convulsions.

 

[exitingtothevoid]

Further refinement I thought of if I was using this method: I would put a rubber band around my neck before inflating the bag. Then I would tuck the opening of the bag under the rubber band and double check that the bag is fully under the band. Then I would wrap tape tightly around my neck a few times to ensure the bag doesn't come off.

I think trying to tape a loose bag around my neck would be harder than it seems, even with practice. And probably extra hard doing it quickly while holding my breath and possibly with shaking hands. I'm not sure I would trust the rubber band by itself to keep the bag on my head.

A small amount of air entered the bag should not prevent rapid fainting as long as the resulting concentration of O2 after exchange with the residual air in the lungs does not exceed 6%.

I did some research into the physiology of breathing when I first started considering the exit bag for myself. There is about a liter of oxygen in the blood at any time. That will be converted into CO2 and exhaled. There is also about a liter of air (so 0.2L oxygen) left in most people's lungs when they fully exhale. So if my understanding is correct you will eventually end up with about 1.2L of CO2 in the bag just from your body. With a 20L bag, subtracting several liters(?) for the head and maybe a few more because the bag is tied around the neck, you will be close to 10% CO2 concentration which is more than high enough to create panic.

But you should have already passed out from lack of oxygen by then, so maybe it doesn't matter.

A bag with holes designed for purging expelled gases doesn't seem so secure, you have to rely on maintaining the right flow rate despite possible convulsions.

This is the catch-22 of alternative CTB methods. If someone proposed the exit bag as a new method, I would worry the same. But we know exit bags work because they are talked about alot in medical literature.

 

[Intoxicated]

I did some research into the physiology of breathing when I first started considering the exit bag for myself. There is about a liter of oxygen in the blood at any time. That will be converted into CO2 and exhaled. There is also about a liter of air (so 0.2L oxygen) left in most people's lungs when they fully exhale. So if my understanding is correct you will eventually end up with about 1.2L of CO2 in the bag just from your body. With a 20L bag, subtracting several liters(?) for the head and maybe a few more because the bag is tied around the neck, you will be close to 10% CO2 concentration which is more than high enough to create panic.

But you should have already passed out from lack of oxygen by then, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Exactly, I experimented with breathing in a sealed bag, and it takes several minutes till CO2 builds up to an extent when breathing becomes very uncomfortable. Meanwhile, breathing with an oxygen-depleted gas where the concentration of O2 is less then 6% should produce loss of consciousness in seconds. It's unlikely that CO2 will be able to bring your consciousness back, especially in case of using N2O which has a sedative effect in addition to displacing O2 from the lungs.

But we know exit bags work because they are talked about alot in medical literature.

I didn't find any stats regarding success rate with exit bags using constant gas flow. And it's difficult to estimate the reliability of this method by analyzing the suggested protocol. For example, it's unobvious that 15 - 20 L/min (0.25 - 0.33 L/s) should suffice for a reliable CTB, considering that technically you can inhale air as fast as at 1 or even 2 liters in one second, and then the difference between incoming and consumed gas mixture would have to be compensated by contraction on the bag and sucking in air from the ambient atmosphere at unknown proportions.

In case of a sealed bag, you know that the amount of air sucked in through microholes is miserable, whist having an open bag you just pray that the suggested protocol is well-balanced.

 

[athiestjoe]

"but they didn't mention any real study with testing completely sealed bags filled with nitrogen or other asphyxiants. On the other hand, people really died from asphyxiation with nitrous oxide"

A few things:

(1) It would somewhat cruel to "test" the completely sealed bag method due to the known human response to carbon dioxide buildup. PPH/PPEH does not need to explain the basic human response which is already known. It mentions it briefly and in passing for a reason but a little more on it for us: the hypercapnic alarm is the body's physiological response to elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood aka hypercapnia. Essentially, and a very short version of relevant info on this, when CO2 levels in the bloodstream rise, it leads to a decrease in blood pH (respiratory acidosis) and specialized chemoreceptors in the body, primarily located in the brainstem and in the carotid arteries, detect the elevated CO2 levels. The body then has physiological responses by increasing the respiratory rate in an attempt to expel excess CO2, increase heart rate to improve oxygen delivery and circulation, and blood vessles dilate to enhance blood flow to vital organs. CO2 will cause confusion, headaches, diziness, shortness of breath, panic & anxiety. The goal is to do this as peacefully as possible so it seems counter productive to do tests using methods which will heighten anxiety and stress and just lead to someone removing the bag when going into it this is already something we know.

It's pretty clear that flow rate plays a big role in getting rid of CO2 effectively and also prevents oxygen from entering the bag (double/extra win). Whether 15 lpm is the sweet spot or if it could be lower or higher is a bit beyond my expertise. That's why the insights from users who've done extensive oxygen analysis are super valuable to this conversation on top of the PPH's analysis tests. It provides us with a baseline understanding of expelling enough CO2 to not trigger the alarm discussed above, it makes some common sense to me anyways. In theory, sure, you could try different approaches, but considering the serious risks involved—like potential brain damage—it makes sense to find ways to minimize those risks. Reducing errors is always a smart move, especially with something as critical as CTB. Even if it's not strictly necessary, why wouldn't someone want to put in a little extra effort to boost their chances of success and lower the risk of failure? Ensuring a steady flow rate doesn't take much work, and it makes a lot of sense.

As for the current exit bag/gas method, it creates a nearly zero-oxygen environment, which helps induce loss of consciousness quickly and provides a way for exhaled CO2 to escape and not become trapped to trigger the panic alarm. Trying to replicate a zero-oxygen situation could be really tricky with trying to do the method you are discussing as gas could escape when you're putting it on, CO2 would build up in the bag, and sealing it off just complicates things further. That definitely doesn't align with what we're aiming for in terms of being realistic, reliable, and consistently successful.

I do love innovation and new ideas, but as with any CTB method reduction of risks is always a good idea;

(2) Yes, I understand you have found some isolated incidents of it happening but the cases you mentioned of people who have died certainly highlight sure it has happened, but they aren't reliable or repeatable. Just like the fact I could point to many cases of people dying from drug overdoses, but those outcomes aren't consistent if someone were to take the same doses again. We do know their underlying health factors. We do not know the full circumstances. It would almost be like me saying, "Hey I found the following 10 cases of people who fell off a curb and died" then saying "So it can be done, thus we should explore it more" > that would be somewhat reckless and misguided of me to do. Just because it has happened does not mean it is a good idea for an important endeavor like CTB. Just like, to bring it back around to the bag method now, there are also cases of people suffocating in bags without any gas involved, but using those as examples doesn't contribute to a constructive discussion. Just because something can happen or has happened doesn't mean it's worth exploring further, especially without a solid understanding of human biology and functionality (see point #1 above).

While innovation is always great, it's essential to ground and guide those ideas in a basic understanding of why certain methods may not be ideal on some fundamental levels. Research and development are crucial for any CTB method, but we already have a grasp of how the body reacts to CO2 buildup, which suggests that further exploration in this direction may not be worthwhile. I am not saying it can't be done, of course anything can be done. It is not realistic though.

If this were a method that people could easily do, I would put good money on a lot more instances of success. People are desperate for self-deliverance and in a lot of pain and suffering. If something as easy as this could be achieved with any sort of ease and reliability, it would be done routinely already. Especially for the people looking for a "finger-tip reach" solution.

(3) also, let's talk about that word "necessary" for a second too as far as when it comes to the gas method. It's also not technically "necessary" to say test the tank pressure gauge for CTB success, but relying on an untested tank means putting a lot of faith in its proper pressurization to make sure someone truly has the amount of gas the supplier claims. Even the most reputable stores can and do make mistakes. Why leave it up to chance and faith in another person when a simple extra step can confirm it? Sure, people may have succeeded without testing PSI, but skipping this step certainly increases the risk of failure. Yes, obtaining a gauge incurs some cost and adds an extra step, but it's still a wise decision. Common-sense precautions exist for a reason. When it comes to something as crucial as CTB, minimizing risks and variables is essential. I find it puzzling why anyone would overlook such straightforward steps that can help ensure a smoother process. So I guess the word 'necessary' is subjective. Perhaps the better words is "prudent" "wise" "reasonable" etc could be in play here.

(4) while anything can be 'debatable' it does not mean it is an even debate. We factually already know which is in fact more reliable, it truly is that simple. I am not downplaying the effort and thought you've put into this but take a step back to evaluate it objectively for a moment. And a lot of things "should be easy" but does not mean they actually are easy. Should be easy does not equal can/will be easy. It's also interesting you would hinge an argument about the flow and claim there isn't "decent proof" yet now want to propose this without decent, let alone good, proof as to it working. Seems a bit wonky and a big leap of logic to do that if you care about 'proof'. It is a little weird to dismiss PPH's thoughtful outline to then try to propose something different and want to call it debatable for reliability, somewhat insouciant. I'm not trying nor mean to argue in any way as I fully respect everyone but I do try to tread with caution and think things through before making assertions and really encourage to think of the ramifications for proposing ideas without thinking them through. But if, by only what you said, you are wanting to propose a different method that is awesome but it is hard to follow the train of thought if you want to then discount knowledgable studies; it is possible to keep researching to find a way to make them possibly align or make sense. But I think the emphasis there is more research for this method given we already have many, many years of research of the existing exit bag scenario. Nothing to be taken lightly for something as important as creating a successful CTB (just my opinion anyways).

Reasonable people are obviously welcome to disagree and discard anything they disagree with and continue on whatever path they want.

I personally, just for me, would rather stick to a method that has substantial evidentiary support than trying to shoot from the hip and pursue something which fundementally is far more difficult to execute and substantially has a potentially higher risk of failure and unknown variables, but again everyone can and should evaluate whatever those might be for themselves. People are welcome to do whatever they wish and can rely on a shot in the dark vs trying something that has some reliability, evidence, stats, proof, and applies basic fundamental reasoning. No one is trying to debate, we are just trying to be reasonable, realistic, and avoid potentially just making things worse off for people than before an attempt. Being mildly cautious at a minimum and not reckless with suggestions is somewhat fair.

I totally agree that for some being able to hide the tank or lift it could be an obstacle for some, in which case it is fine to not want to pursue the intert gas method, but I equally do not think it makes the method you are proposing is a viable one to substitute for it. I would instead look into other reliable methods if the goal truly was to CTB but that is just me. Everyone should make up their own minds based on scientific principles, logical reasoning, and make the best, most educated choices. I wish you nothing but the absolute best of luck with whatever you decide is right for you! Whether someone wants to risk a failure and have potentially long term consequences from the failed attempt at something is their right, but it sounds pretty reckless.

With whatever you decide, I hope you find everything you are looking for and get peace & serenity.

 

[Intoxicated]

(1) It would somewhat cruel to "test" the completely sealed bag method due to the known human response to carbon dioxide buildup. PPH/PPEH does not need to explain the basic human response which is already known. It mentions it briefly and in passing for a reason but a little more on it for us: the hypercapnic alarm is the body's physiological response to elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the blood aka hypercapnia. Essentially, and a very short version of relevant info on this, when CO2 levels in the bloodstream rise, it leads to a decrease in blood pH (respiratory acidosis) and specialized chemoreceptors in the body, primarily located in the brainstem and in the carotid arteries, detect the elevated CO2 levels. The body then has physiological responses by increasing the respiratory rate in an attempt to expel excess CO2, increase heart rate to improve oxygen delivery and circulation, and blood vessles dilate to enhance blood flow to vital organs. CO2 will cause confusion, headaches, diziness, shortness of breath, panic & anxiety.

What is the relevance of these effects to an unconscious person?

The goal is to do this as peacefully as possible so it seems counter productive to do tests using methods which will heighten anxiety and stress and just lead to someone removing the bag when going into it this is already something we know.

There are no reasons for anxiety other than biased fears towards CO2. After all, if the person starts feeling uncomfortable, they could request immediate abortion of the procedure and using a more reliable backup CTB method.

Even if it's not strictly necessary, why wouldn't someone want to put in a little extra effort to boost their chances of success and lower the risk of failure? Ensuring a steady flow rate doesn't take much work, and it makes a lot of sense.

If highest possible reliability were the main criterion of choosing CTB method, I'd rather use hydrogen sulfide instead of inert gases, since H2S poisoning is way more deadly than plain gas asphyxiation.

Trying to replicate a zero-oxygen situation could be really tricky with trying to do the method you are discussing as gas could escape when you're putting it on

Firstly, there is no need in "zero-oxygen" environment, there are enough sources telling that less than 6% of O2 rapidly cause both unconsciousness and death. 0 - 6% is a very good margin, and fitting in it doesn't look very difficult to achieve.

Secondly, some part of the gas is actually supposed to escape the bag as your head will displace the gas by its own volume. This is not a flaw, it's rather a good feature of the method, since the streams of N2O coming out of the bag prevent entering atmoshperic air inside.

Thirdly, you can train yourself by putting a bag with plain air over the head in order to find an optimal way of doing this, so excessive amounts of the gas wouldn't escape.

Fourthly, you can buy more nitrous oxide that would suffice for several attempts.

CO2 would build up in the bag, and sealing it off just complicates things further.

That's not a big deal, since it's possible to unwrap insulation tape back or use something like knife left nearby to get access to fresh air quickly. If you have an escape plan, you can also practice it with plain air inside the bag.

That definitely doesn't align with what we're aiming for in terms of being realistic, reliable, and consistently successful.

It's funny to read something like that from someone who considers using sodium nitrite as their main method ))) As if nitrite poisoning were very reliable or comfortable or easy for abortion in case if you don't like the perceptions during the process.

Research and development are crucial for any CTB method, but we already have a grasp of how the body reacts to CO2 buildup, which suggests that further exploration in this direction may not be worthwhile. I am not saying it can't be done, of course anything can be done. It is not realistic though.

Do you know how a body reacts on cutting? Isn't it painful? If you know that it's painful, does this mean that cutting during surgery must also be painful even under anesthesia? Ignoring the context in which body reaction takes place is a mistake.

If something as easy as this could be achieved with any sort of ease and reliability, it would be done routinely already.

I disagree. Many people are simply irrational and/or ignorant about possible CTB methods. Just look at countless attempts of OD with paracetamol. This method is highly unreliable and causes a lot of discomfort, and nevertheless people choose it regularly.

On the other hand, potentially great methods may be unnoticed by a majority of suicidal people simply because they're barely mentioned, their effective protocols are not written in well-visible places, and many people just prefer popular methods over rarely used ones. So we get a vicious circle here: a method remains unpopular because it's unpopular.

It is a little weird to dismiss PPH's thoughtful outline to then try to propose something different and want to call it debatable for reliability, somewhat insouciant.

PPH authors are humans, and their conclusions can be erroneous. Besides, they can have hidden motives to make the described methods harder than necessary because of their "suicide is not for everyone" philosophy. So I think that my skepticism is well justified.

I personally, just for me, would rather stick to a method that has substantial evidentiary support than trying to shoot from the hip and pursue something which fundementally is far more difficult to execute and substantially has a higher risk of failure. People are welcome to do whatever they wish and can rely on a shot in the dark vs trying something that has some reliability, evidence, stats, proof, and applies basic fundamental reasoning. No one is trying to debate, we are just trying to be reasonable, realistic, and avoid potentially just making things worse off for people than before an attempt.

Let's assume that you ripped the bag off and aborted an attempt because of CO2 buildup. What exactly does become worse to you? As long as you're able to abort the attempt, you shouldn't be injured too much. At least I don't see how this differs from a similar hypoxia caused by NaNO2 with subsequent surviving.

I totally agree that for some being able to hide the tank or lift it could be an obstacle for some, in which case it is fine to not want to pursue the intert gas method, but I equally do not think it makes the method you are proposing is a viable one to substitute for it. I would instead look into other reliable methods if the goal truly was to CTB but that is just me.

More reliable methods like poisoning with sodium nitrite? )) Drinking a disgusting salty shit that makes you experiencing nausea and possibly puking during the last moments of your conscious life? No, thanks! )) I'd better try a method that would likely make me getting high instead, and if it doesn't work, I still have H2S poisoning as a nearly 100% reliable backup plan.

 

[athiestjoe]

There is absolutely no need to be rude, take out your frustrations on others, or make snide comments; does not add any value to the conversation and only detracts from what could have been a productive conversation on topic. People should be able make their points without making attacks on other users (or mocking them) who are considering different methods and still be respectful.

Wishing you the best of luck with whatever you decide.

 

[Eudaimonic]

I am thinking of possibly combining N2O with drowning.