Method SN vs SA (Pros and Cons?)

[DyslexicForeigner]

Hello all... I'm new here and I can't seem to find a thread that compare the advantages and disadvantages between this two substances. I know there's a megathread about SN but it's way too many pages to read, and this SN may or may not be compared directly to the SA method. So what are the pros and cons of each method?

 

[Asdr5633]

SN is easier to get. SN is also probably more peaceful. However, SN has an antidote (methylene blue) which can stop you from dying in case somebody finds you and you are taken to hospital or something. On the other hand, SA has no antidote and it kills you faster so you will still almost certainly die even if you end up in hospital.

 

[Arak]

@DyslexicForeigner ,

Whether it's easy to get sodium azide doesn't matter, only if you can get it. It shouldn't be a problem in the USA, tricky in Europe.

We don't know how 'peaceful' SN really is. Basically, death occurs by depriving your tissues of oxygen. Nitschke has been advocating SN, I don't trust him. Something may appear to be peaceful, but how do you know what a person is experiencing ? Experiences probably vary.
It's (almost) fully reversible with methylene blue. We don't know how long it takes to lose consciousness, this likely varies. If it takes many hours and causes great suffering, will you be able to resist calling for help knowing that the process is reversible ?

Sodium azide, in the right dose and assuming you took the right dose (high enough, 10-20 gr should definitely be enough) of the right antiemetic at the the right time, on an empty stomach and empty small intestines the probability that it kills you is (near) 100 %. I think Nitschke described two basic reactions, one involving a quick loss of consciousness, the other 'ominous'. Especially if the former does not occur, expect it to be extremely brutal. Likely, (much) worse than cyanide.

 

[DyslexicForeigner]

@DyslexicForeigner ,

Whether it's easy to get sodium azide doesn't matter, only if you can get it. It shouldn't be a problem in the USA, tricky in Europe.

We don't know how 'peaceful' SN really is. Basically, death occurs by depriving your tissues of oxygen. Nitschke has been advocating SN, I don't trust him. Something may appear to be peaceful, but how do you know what a person is experiencing ? Experiences probably vary.
It's (almost) fully reversible with methylene blue. We don't know how long it takes to lose consciousness, this likely varies. If it takes many hours and causes great suffering, will you be able to resist calling for help knowing that the process is reversible ?

Sodium azide, in the right dose and assuming you took the right dose (high enough, 10-20 gr should definitely be enough) of the right antiemetic at the the right time, on an empty stomach and empty small intestines the probability that it kills you is (near) 100 %. I think Nitschke described two basic reactions, one involving a quick loss of consciousness, the other 'ominous'. Especially if the former does not occur, expect it to be extremely brutal. Likely, (much) worse than cyanide.

Thanks @Arak. I choose SA then, I have access to it. I don't care if it's very painful or brutal. I'll take 20 grams of SA with anti emetics 1 hour before ingestion to ensure ctb success.

 

[deathenvoy]

SA is explosive in contact with metal, gases it creates in body can be dangerous to person who resuscitate you.
No such problems with SN.