DavidLee Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 I have to disagree with David on this one, oil based smoke/haze is much better on the vocal cords, throat and lungs as it isn't hygroscopic and is preferred by every single musician and actor I know who has the ability to tell the difference.Firstly: I wasn't referring to modern oil-based hazers but the nasty old machines that tended to produce genuine smoke particles by partial combustion of the oil. Secondly: It's totally irelevant anyway since the point of the spiel is to convince the talent that THIS machine won't have the devastating effect that they are absolutely sure that "smoke machines" produce. You simply have to convince them to forget previous experiences and trust you and then their own experience will give confirmation. Finally I remain totally unconvinced about the safety of drawing a mist of insoluble oil particles deep into your lungs - the only way out is the way it came in - unlike water-based fog, which can be dissolved in body fluids and carried away safely. You may be right when you say it feels better "on the voice" but that does not make it safer. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 Firstly: I wasn't referring to modern oil-based hazers but the nasty old machines that tended to produce genuine smoke particles by partial combustion of the oil.Didn't think of that, a bit before my time I'm afraid. Secondly: It's totally irelevant anyway since the point of the spiel is to convince the talent that THIS machine won't have the devastating effect that they are absolutely sure that "smoke machines" produce. You simply have to convince them to forget previous experiences and trust you and then their own experience will give confirmation.While I see your point I think the original poster needs to be as accurate as possible. Say the performer believes the spiel then the next venue uses oil based haze, you've just made persuading them that is also safe a pain in the arse. Or what if they actually know what they are talking about, you've then just made it twice as hard to persuade them its OK. Finally I remain totally unconvinced about the safety of drawing a mist of insoluble oil particles deep into your lungs - the only way out is the way it came in - unlike water-based fog, which can be dissolved in body fluids and carried away safely. You may be right when you say it feels better "on the voice" but that does not make it safer.I'm the first to admit that my biology isn't the best however I wouldn't have expected any particles to make it past the bronchioles, even if they made it that far, where the cilia would transport them back up to the throat (or wherever the hell they go). I would even go as far to say I would suspect the (lesser) interaction between oil and the mucus would be better than the glycol solution? This should be taken with a pinch of salt as my biology really isn't that great and if anyone can correct me then that would be great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidLee Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 I remain totally unconvinced about the safety of drawing a mist of insoluble oil particles deep into your lungs - the only way out is the way it came in - unlike water-based fog, which can be dissolved in body fluids and carried away safely. You may be right when you say it feels better "on the voice" but that does not make it safer.I'm the first to admit that my biology isn't the best however I wouldn't have expected any particles to make it past the bronchioles, even if they made it that far, where the cilia would transport them back up to the throat (or wherever the hell they go). I would even go as far to say I would suspect the (lesser) interaction between oil and the mucus would be better than the glycol solution? This should be taken with a pinch of salt as my biology really isn't that great and if anyone can correct me then that would be great. The problem that concerns me is that an oil-mist is not composed of particles but fine droplets of liquid that can flow and coat the inside of your airways. Consider: If you sprinkle baby powder on your hand then you can brush it off but you'll only get rid of baby oil with soap or detergent - there would appear to be close parallels with coughing up non-respirable dust vs oil. Granted, the viscosity of the oil will probably prevent it penetrating all the way into your alveoli but there's no way that I want an oil mist in my lungs. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted March 14, 2007 Share Posted March 14, 2007 The bottom 4 links on this page will tell you everything you need to know about 'smoke' and it's safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ike Posted March 15, 2007 Share Posted March 15, 2007 Consider: If you sprinkle baby powder on your hand then you can brush it off but you'll only get rid of baby oil with soap or detergent - there would appear to be close parallels with coughing up non-respirable dust vs oil.But the lining of your bronchioles and bronchi is covered mucus which is continuously being replenished...like a slug! Now imagine the difference between putting baby oil and glycol solution on a slug... Sorry I'll get my coat! No slugs were harmed in the making of this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.