Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Smoke

Possible picture for article

Someone should put this pic up. I would do it but I don't know how.

http://usgsprobe.cr.usgs.gov/images/mosaic.gif

It's volcano smoke particles under an electron microscope.


Video has cooling towers

The large hyperbolic cylinders in the front are not smokestacks, but cooling towers, which emit plain water vapor. --Vuo (talk) 01:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC) -- Agreed. They have been removed Daler (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the term

Could we have the etymology of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faro0485 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todays Edits

No idea how to revert 3 edits so I will rely on someone else's ability. The latest 3 edits damage the article randomly inserting the name of some jpg file. Looks accidental. --91.84.51.237 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Measurement of smoke", subsection "optical", the text correctly states that the optical detector can be at different angles with respect to the source. In some cases, more smoke results in less light; in other cases it is the opposite. In the case cited, 90 degrees, more smoke results in more light. Feel free to email me: mcnaught at unm dot edu 68.35.150.245 (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't smoke a colloid?

If it is, it should probably be mentioned. If it isn't, it seems to have enough colloid properties to explain why it isn't. Shiggity (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Health effects of wood smoke

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To merge, recognizing that there is potential for a separate article in the future. Klbrain (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page is essentially a duplicate of the paragraph-length section in this article with the same name. Needforspeed888 (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at the moment they're identical. I think a better option would be to reduce the length of the paragraph there and expand this article over time, but if merging eventually turns out to be a better option we can do that. Alec Gargett (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke just isn't about wood smoke and features from other ways of combustion and also including the health effect of those BUT the Health Effects Of Wood Smoke article is basically just wood smoke and its' health effects. I agree with this merge unless there's consensus to do a merge-split into Smoke and Health effects of smoke which could also could be an option, but I guess we should just merge if not. Dawn Lim (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a stand-alone article on Health effects of wood smoke or Health effects of smoke would be great but does anyone have time to set it up? If not, then I guess Health effects of smoke should for now become a redirect to Smoke#Health effects of wood smoke. Not there is also quite a bit of content on this topic at wildfire. This could be tidied up as well. EMsmile (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Medicinal'

How could you allow a section made by the source cited to persist for a decade and a half? Some people have probably died because you allowed this nonsense to go unchallenged! Explain to me again why editable information is so great? 2600:1700:6801:C10:71F3:20F7:6AEF:1882 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If only this page had been updated before Darius the Great (522–486 BC) died... oh wait. Editable information tends to be great, but it doesn't improve the ability of people to read. Some people probably died because you were writing this mini-rant instead of taking a walk down a rarely used road during which you would have been witness to a car accident and been able to call emergency services quickly. It's about as likely as anyone dying from smoking syrian rue after reading a section of a page about historical use / ethnopharmacology. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep and Smoke

What's up with this unsourced info?

When asleep the nose does not sense smoke nor does the brain, but the body will wake up if the lungs become enveloped in smoke and the brain will be stimulated and the person will be awoken. This does not work if the person is incapacitated or under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

While I can understand it if this is talking about CO buildup tending to cause unconsciousness that prevents normal waking, that isn't what it says. The "under the influence of drugs or alcohol" is extremely suspect as well. Alcohol tends to worsen sleep and cause more sleep interruptions above the traditional German or Italian glass of beer / wine with dinner or below US "recreational" amounts (aka brain damaging binge drinking at the bar). The vast majority of legal and illegal drugs (including normal doses of low to mid-strength opioids) cause less deep sleep than you'd get being sober. The major exception to this are a few of the benzodiazepines and generally people with sleep disorders won't sleep any more deeply than a normal person from a prescription dose. Opioids weaken the cough / sneeze reflex but don't eliminate it entirely. I've woken up sneezing when sick before and smoke particles will probably induce this in most people.

Aside from all of that I've never heard of this before, only that the main danger was CO / CO2 rendering people unconscious before they could wake up. It should probably be removed unless someone can come up with a valid medical reference. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Smoke