4 ms·
Seeing as lithium is a powerful "mood stabilizer and antidepressant" (per wikipedia), I am curious how awful inhaling its smoke is for human beings? I'm sure i
by MrMcCall 2y ago
Seeing as lithium is a powerful "mood stabilizer and antidepressant" (per wikipedia), I am curious how awful inhaling its smoke is for human beings?
I'm sure it existing in combination with other elements changes its bioavailability (as opposed its practically non-existent elemental form), but for better or worse?
- voidUpdate 2y agoThe bipolar treatment is generally Lithium Carbonate. The product of burning lithium is Lithium Oxide. I doubt it has the same effects on a person when inhaled
- gus_massa 2y agoLithium Oxide reacts with water and you get two Lithium Hydroxide, so when it reach a mucous membrane it will split intermediately into Li+ and HO- and nobody will remember they were together. Lithium Carbonate is very soluble, so once it reach a mucous membrane it will dissolve, split in two Li+ and one CO3= and nobody will remember they were together. So in both cases you get intermediately Li+ so I expect no differences in the bioavailability. (IANAMD. Don't try this at home) But there is an important difference: Lithium Oxide one is too alkaline and so I guess that inhaling it is like inhaling quicklime power and you may get a huge irritation. If there are firefighter, rain or other sources of water you will get Lithium Hidroxide that is like hydrated lime that is not as bad. Lithium Carbonate is only slightly alkaline (like anti acid pills) so I guess that inhaling it is like inhaling limestone power that is not a good idea but is no terrible.
- matkoniecz 2y agoIt seems unlikely that it is inhaled, especially its burned form, when used as "mood stabilizer and antidepressant"
- phyzome 2y agoBear in mind that lithium has some unpleasant side effects. So if you don't need it, it's... not great.
- nancyminusone 2y agoYou don't hear too many stories of people lighting lithium batteries on fire intentionally and inhaling the results (compare with nitrous, paint fumes, air duster, etc.), so I'm guessing there's not much there.
- serviceberry 2y agoI don't know why you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable question. The lithium cation is the bioactive part and the smoke will produce it when the particles are dissolved in water. But the basic answer is that lithium is fairly ubiquitous in the environment and it has biological effects only at fairly substantial doses. I think the usual therapeutic dose is above one gram of lithium carbonate per day. The most likely product here is lithium hydroxide, which is caustic. The smoke also contains more dangerous substances such as carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide from burning plastic. So, I'd wager you'd be dead or seriously injured long before you feel any cognitive effects. Lithium also doesn't bioaccumulate, so any small amount that gets in your body will be cleared fairly quickly - probably within a day or two. In essence, I'd stay clear of the smoke, but not because of the mood-related effects.
- MrMcCall 2y agoThanks, that's a fantastic, informative response. > I don't know why you're being downvoted, it's a reasonable question. No to the high-karma stupid, especially because their stupidity is growing more glaringly obvious by the day, and that makes them angry instead of leading them to reevalute their ignorance. "Same as it ever was." --Talking Heads
- mapt 2y agoWhat nobody talks about is that much of the lithium electrolyte in lithium ion batteries is in the chemical form of lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6). Burning produces nontrivial amounts of hydrogen fluoride and clouds of hydrofluoric acid. In the short term, these are horrifically toxic (reactive). They'll bond with just about anything, including etching glass. The impact on living tissue is nightmarish and unlike some other strong acids, protracted because it absorbs rapidly through skin and starts substituting things in your biochemistry. There are also a variety of other excitingly unstable fluorinated compounds floating around. I have a suspicion that at some point we're going to stop talking about "Hey it's a fire that won't go out, we have to use too much water, our tanker trucks aren't equipped for this" and start talking about "Hey it's a fire that boils off what is very nearly a chemical weapon. Evacuate a mile downwind and let it burn". And then we're going to ban the more fire-prone chemistries in stationary and vehicular applications. What event is going to trigger that? I think the most likely thing is a mass casualty event in a deep tunnel traffic jam where the pileup ends up igniting. Obligatory reading: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-touch-1 https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/things-i-won-t-tou... And on this specific threat: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09784-z
- rsynnott 2y agoIt _may_ become irrelevant before that happens; the less-explode-y chemistries seem to be winning the war at the moment, particularly for non-weight-sensitive applications like storage (the incredible exploding power plant in the article used NMC cells, but I think that would be rather surprising for a new installation today, say).
- MrMcCall 2y agoThis why HN is sometimes so valuable. Thanks, friend.