|
Man Commits Suicide by Supergluing Mouth Shut
|
Posted By:
~*sShimmeRr*~
in Adelaide, Australia
Jun 17, 2005
|
This one takes the cake! At first i thought it was a joke, but this fella really went out the uneasy way! Check it out:
"A young Thai man said to be suffering from stress killed himself by sealing his mouth and nose with super glue, police said Thursday.
The body of Komkrit Choochan, 20, was found Thursday morning in his bedroom in downtown Bangkok, police Lt. Col. Mongkol Nanthajit said. He said the victim, thought to have suffocated overnight, had his mouth and nose sealed with super glue, which prevented him from breathing.
It was believed to be the first suicide of its kind in Thailand.
Komkrit's family told police he had a history of moodiness. They said he argued with his elder sister on Wednesday over money she borrowed from him and failed to return, after which he went into the bedroom where his body was found 10 hours later.
A note saying "Here is all that I have, take what you please," was found on the dead man's bed along with 1,000 baht (US$24.42, €20.22 ) in cash, Mongkol said."
Category: Death; Replies: 67 |
Comments
|
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 12:11 AM
Let's take a look at this bottle of furniture polish. Hmm, nope, nothing on that about it being toxic. How about this can of insect poison? Nothing there. This can of polyurethane? Nope. None of them have a big label saying TOXIC. So I suppose that means that they're all safe to eat?
My previous posting still stands. Try reading it, Doogifer, since it includes a mention of what the Federal government knows about cyanoacrylates. As does the posting before that one. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 05:53 AM
A 37% solution of formaldehyde has a LD50 (basically a dose lethal in 50% of cases) of 100mg/kg (in rats).
Without data as to the strength of the solution (if any), amount ingested, and weight of the individual, any estimate as to the toxicity of the procedure is just blather.
(In other words, your both wrong!) |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 07:27 AM
And yes, it was deliberate. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 02:57 PM
Solutions of formaldehyde, generically called formalin, are made by combining water, formaldehyde, and (most commonly) methyl alcohol. The methanol is needed to stabilize the formaldehyde, which is a very reactive chemical and would otherwise tend to oxidize into formic acid. Formalin is used instead of pure formaldehyde because it is less reactive or toxic. Formaldehyde not in such a buffered solution, such as that released by the hydrolysis of cyanoacrylates, has an LD50 of less than 5 mg/kg.
All of that is irrelevant, though. Knowing "the strength of the solution (if any), amount ingested, and weight of the individual" is not necessary to simply determine that poisoning has occurred. We are not trying to determine an exact LD50 for cyanoacrylate glues. We are not even discussing lethal amounts. We are determining simply that they can cause tissue damage through toxicity. When the original short-chain forming cyanoacrylates were first used for medical treatment, they were known to cause histotoxic reactions leading to tissue necrosis. This has been known since the 1960's at least. It has been documented, tested, and verified. It is a very localized toxicity rather than a systemic, so the weight of the individual is irrelevant. That is why the FDA has only recently approved some (not all) cyanoacrylate glues for treating injuries: they had to wait until more stable long-chain forming cyanoacrylates were developed, tested, and shown to be less toxic than the earlier ones. The more toxic ones, however, are still used in store-bought superglues because they are cheaper to produce. |
Doogifer
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 05:04 PM
Accipiter, this discussion was about someone gluing their mouth shut. Nobody is interested in you babbling about the definition of 'toxic.' |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 05:24 PM
Doogifer, this discussion involved the toxicity of superglue before I ever started making any comments. You yourself were apparently interested enough in the topic to make your own contribution to it earlier on. If you're not interested in discussing the toxicity, then don't post about it. If you're not wanting to even read about that sort of thing, then don't read it. |
Doogifer
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 10:49 PM
The manufacturers say that superglue is non-toxic. Wouldn't they get sued if they were lying? |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 11:23 PM
As I mentioned before, some manufacturers do mention it's toxicity. If others don't mention it, I don't know why. Maybe they use a different substance in their glues. Or maybe they don't feel that the warning is needed, assuming that the glue is going to be used on broken vases and model airplanes and whatever. Those other products I mentioned also don't say that they are toxic, so it seems that it's not needed on every potentially toxic product. Who decides what gets put on warnings, anyway? I think that the FDA decides with things like foods and medicines, but for hobby glues and things like that I haven't a clue.
I also wonder how common it is for people to kill themselves with superglue? I haven't seen any other cases of it mentioned, and the article was saying that it's supposed to be the first such death in Thailand. It seems to be a rather odd choice. Maybe he wanted to make an impression. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 05:27 AM
Accipiter: Fri Jun 24, 2005 | 11:57 AM
We are not trying to determine an exact LD50 for cyanoacrylate glues. We are not even discussing lethal amounts. We are determining simply that they can cause tissue damage through toxicity.
Perhaps I was confused by your earlier comments...
Accipiter: Tue Jun 21, 2005 | 04:32 PM
Sharruma is correct about cyanoacrylate glue, though: it is toxic. That's why they have all the warning labels on it saying not to use it in a ventilated area and not to sniff the fumes.
The later sideways move of the discussion into formaldehyde, and the arbitrary 5mg/kg is just irrelevant. "Toxic" has a specific definition.
Toxic - A chemical falling within any of the following categories:
1. A chemical with a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 50 milligrams per kilogram but not more than 500 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered orally to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
2. A chemical that has a median lethal dose (LD50) of more than 200 milligrams per kilogram but not more than 1,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight when administered by continuous contact for 24 hours (or less if death occurs within 24 hours) with the bare skin of albino rabbits weighing between two and three kilograms each.
3. A chemical that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air of more than 200 parts per million but not more than 2,000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, or more than two milligrams per liter but not more than 20 milligrams per liter of mist, fume, or dust, when administered by continuous inhalation for one hour (or less if death occurs within 1 hour) to albino rats weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
Anything worse than the above is "Highly Toxic". Regardless of its chemical decomposition, a compounds toxicity is measured by oral, dermal or inhalatory exposure of the raw compund itself.
In the case of Cyanoacrylate Ester these figures are...
LD50(oral): >5000mg/kg
LD50(dermal): >2000mg/kg
LC50(inhalation): (not on my MSDS, Anyone?)
By the standard criteria, Cyanoacrylate Ester is not classed as toxic. |
Rita
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 10:49 AM
Who the hell cares? It's a story about glue. I don't mind people arguing about it, but calling each other morons and telling each other to try gluing your mouth shut is just uncalled for. There's no reason to be rude about it, as it makes you seem immature. But whatever. |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 02:34 PM
I gues we're all STUCK in a rut. I'm not sure what the CURE is, perhaps to ADHERE to the topic and not get into any CRAZY GLUE-fuelled fantasies about fitting another poster up with a CEMENT overcoat.
This is not the first time a flame war has, or nearly has, erupted on this site you know! Somepeople just sin and RE-SIN, not caring how much they GUM up the boards for others. Until the policies on such things HARDEN, I guess we're STUCK with it.
Before you know it we'll have descended into the realm of puns. As my old Yorkshire Grandfather used to say, "eE, POXY puns, there's nowt else quite so TACKY!"
We had quite a BOND between us, he and I. Don't believe me? Oh well, SUTURE self.
 |
Boo
in The Land of the Haggii...
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 03:02 PM
Oh god, the punnery. |
Rita
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 04:43 PM
Very nice, David B. Well said! |
Doogifer
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 08:17 PM
David B's argument is absolutely correct. Cyanoacrylate is not toxic, despite Accipiter's tendentious reading of the FDA's papers on the subject. So by the standard criteria, Accipiter is, indeed, a moron. |
Accipiter
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 09:00 PM
Doogifer, you need to learn how to argue. Listen to Rita, and pay attention to the methods of people like David B. and Cranky Media Guy. They read the other peoples' comments, check their facts, present their points logically, and try to answer their opponents' points. Simply throwing around insults doesn't accomplish anything other than to lead people to have a rather low opinion of your level of maturity. |
EvilSupahFly
in At work, though I ought to be at home
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 09:37 PM
While I found this thread very amusing, I'd have to agree with all those who said that arguing over something so frivilous as to whether Cyanoacrylate Ester (or any of the name brand counter parts) is toxic, lethal, or emits formaldehyde is completely pointless.
The poor sod in Thailand killed himself by a here-to-forth unusual choice of substances. Case closed. I mean, who around here is going to try it themselves? Unless of course Bobo here has a pay-pal account and a webcam and is willing to prove his point for us? I'd pay to see that! :D
I really do need to confess though that I and the guy next to me were highly entertained by this discussion and look forward to future heated debates. |
FireFly
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 09:38 PM
Yeah Doog, lighten up! Grow Up! Im tired of all this calling people morons and stuff. |
EvilSupahFly
in At work, though I ought to be at home
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 09:56 PM
Is it just me, or do the Google ads at the top of the page seem.... conincidental? Planned even...
Oh, hell, I'll just say it - are the Google Ads about Depression and Suicide intentional? Or am I just stoned...? |
Doogifer
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 | 11:02 PM
Has Accipiter admitted defeat? I want to hear him ask for forgiveness and concede his total moronity and poo-poo headedness. |
Saint Cad
|
Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 | 12:25 AM
Isn't arguing about cyanoacrylate poisoning in this case a little like arguing about lead poisoning when someone shoots himself in the head? |
|
Page 3 of 4 pages < 1 2 3 4 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
