- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
ATMORE, Ala. (AP) — As witnesses including five news reporters watched through a window, Kenneth Eugene Smith, who was convicted and sentenced to die in the 1988 murder-for hire slaying of Elizabeth Sennett, convulsed on a gurney as Alabama carried out the nation’s first execution using nitrogen gas.
Not this way, they had no method to remove the carbon dioxide from his lungs.
It would have been trivial if they used existing methodology, but they didn’t bother to emulate it.
A pure nitrogen environment does not prevent the exhalation of carbon dioxide (source).
They just filled the air he was breathing with nitrogen instead of cycling it through his airspace… They needed a larger volume of gas to keep the amount of CO2 low enough
I’ve seen this claim made multiple times but the articles in question make no mention of it - including this one, unless I’m blind. Do you have a source for this claim?
It’s not a claim that needs sourced. You put out a certain amount of CO2. Breathing that into a larger volume results in lower CO2 density.
If you have a cup of water that full, pouring that into a swimming pool does not result in a full swimming pool.
Every claim needs to be sourced/proved, except axioms. Mathematicians had to prove that 1+1=2, and it was not easy.
Yeah, but you don’t have to prove that, because it’s already been done and is commonly accepted as truth. Similarly to how gas laws have already been proven, and as such don’t really need to be sourced unless you’re getting into something more specific than the basics of hows gasses work.
Gas laws have been proven, but every situation is different and there might be other circumstances here that could be affecting the results.
It’s not the same breathing in open air, in a room, in a plastic bag or in a scuba rebreather, despite the gas laws being the same the inputs are different.
If someone asks for sources the polite thing is to give them or admit you don’t have them.