> Yes, if you assume that author knows the extent of OPs exposure to the fumes and what was in them.
What was in them: we know it was a burning modern electronics, plastic fumes and a battery fire.
Extent of OPs exposure: we know it was one event of fixed duration, close contact with a single burning equipment. Not a chronic exposure, not a pyre of a dozen headphones.
We of course don’t know details on the margins, like which parts did melt on the pcb or how many breaths did the author inhale of this smoke, these are small details.
Even if we assume that these unknown variables fall on the bad side of their respective spectrum, we can still bound our estimation. (Like for example assuming that nearly all the nastines from the single headphone went into the smoke and the author did sit around for an hour in the smooky room.)
This means that we know a lot about both of those questions and can estimate the unknowns with reasonable worst-case thinking. (Which is the conservative thing to do in this situation)
> That's just dismissive attitude that accomplishes nothing and adds nothing to the discussion.
You say that, but it is not true. It is an understandable reaction on OPs part, once the initial shock is over and they see that they are still alive to think about if they have suffered any unknown long term harms. While obviously this kind of exposure is not good, and the OP is unlikely to ask for a repeat it is unlikely to cause lasting harm. In fact worrying about it might actually cause more harm.
Thinking this through calmly and logically is not dismissive, and might actually help the author.
You seemed to have missed the part where the same comment called the OP's concerns "unhelpful paranoia" after the OP's doctor said that the pain they're experiencing is due to chemical burns.
So instead of armchairing the chemical composition of smoke, how about we just not call other people's concerns paranoid, and not excuse others doing so?
This forum's guidelines call for civil discussion, and the OP also commented in this thread. Paranoia is not a word that belongs here.
>You seemed to have missed the part where the same comment called the OP's concerns "unhelpful paranoia" after the OP's doctor said that the pain they're experiencing is due to chemical burns.
Because the burning is in the hands and arms not the nose, larynx or lungs...
>Because the burning is in the hands and arms not the nose, larynx or lungs...
This isn't even a sentence, much less a coherent thought.
The OP inhaled smoke from a burning device that caused chemical burns on his arms. The smoke from burning electronics is hazardous. OP's concerns are justified, and calling him "paranoid", "hypochondriac", etc. is insulting, and against the rules of this forum (on which the OP is commenting as well).
That is assuming it is from the burning materials, but OP said it happened when he was peeling off the earcups that he noticed it being sticky etc.(so it could be the plastic mixing with chemicals?)
And we do not know how many ppm of toxic materials were in the fumes he inhaled or his wife inhaled.
Exposure is cumulative though. If someone keeps getting exposed to "innocuous" things like cigarette smoke, they may very well find 20 years later they've got lung cancer and end up dying young.