Poppers Poppers Guide Poppers Forum Poppers Reviews

Toxic effects of the various poppers...

Posted on Poppers Guide's Forum

Topic created by Nitritespecialist
on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 14:32

Nitritespecialist said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 14:32...

In the 60s and 70s, scientists performed studies on the recreational use of amyl and butyl nitrites. When amyl nitrite reverted back to Script only in 1969, the void was filled with butyl nitrites. Back then some users reported that they preferred amyl because it had less side effects. The findings in these studies has been documented and can be googled.

From my personal experience, I have found that isopropyl nitrite is the most toxic in terms of plunging the blood pressure to levels that cannot sustain life while at the same time cause rapid anemia, resulting in low skin O2 levels and disabling fatigue. In my opinion, it should NOT be legal as it's the fentanyl version of poppers.

Butyl and isobutyl nitrite are less toxic than IPN, and can be endured longer, but they can still cause rapid anemia and plunging blood pressure that won't recover quickly. It's happened many many times to me, which is why I cannot wholeheartedly recommend these types.

The amyl nitrites are the only group that thus far haven't caused rapid anemia and plunging blood pressure in my body, even though I've hit them very hard with repeated inhalations. I have only tried one bottle of hexyl nitrite, which seems less potent than amyl, but it also did not cause any noticeable side effects.

There are some posters who claim that the butyl group comes with no extra precautions than the amyl group. One is just weaker than the other and therefore, everyone should prefer the "stonger"(yet more toxic) butyl group.

Those who make and distribute poppers in the USA have no legal option. They cannot make amyl nitrite and distribute it in brown bottles within the USA. It's only legal via Script since 1969. Therefore, if these makers/sellers want to make money making poppers for recreational use in the USA, they have to make the butyl group or even isopropyl nitrite. Because of this, they have ZERO reason to issue any cautionary warnings about the added risk incurred with these butyl poppers versus amyl poppers. Why kill business if you don't have to. Why be honest if it will effect the bottom line??? We all get it.

Locker Room Marketing and some European makers are selling amyl poppers, which technically can only be purchased via Script. LRM cannot sell any of their poppers directly to the USA or within Canada. They were busted in 2004 for smuggling amyl across the border into the USA. Poppers are not on the list of drugs that are forbidden entry into the USA via the mail(except for LRM's direct sale to US consumers). So for now, dealers in Europe can continue to sell to the US market, at least in small quantities.

I must say however....it's doing a big disservice to anyone who likes the popper effect when the comparison toxic effects of the various alkyl nitrites are hidden or downplayed.

The Professor said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 16:24...

You want through this same routine on Reddit (before you were banned) with popchef, and everything you say above is the same wrong data.

Again, the question is, do you know you are lying, or do you believe your own story.

Nitritespecialist said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 17:48...

Such an ax to grind. Is it because you can't fool everyone with your pseudo science BS???

Nitritespecialist said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 17:56...

It's quite obvious since you and your popper making outfit are direct competitors to LRM that you would do everything to discourage anyone from trying them.

I have ZERO profit motive. I get ZILCH for giving honest and complete evaluations of the poppers I buy. All I get is the satisfaction that I did my duty and informed other drug inhalers about the effects, both positive and negative, along with the perceived quality of my drug of choice that I bought and tried. I want everyone to be informed as much as possible so they can make the best personal choice for themselves. That's been my motto from day one. What the Professor does is squelch dissent. He doesn't want everyone to realize all the pros and cons. He doesn't want to evolve when it doesn't benefit his personal interests in any way.

R. Don said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 18:32...

It's not just plunging blood pressure that IPN causes its eye damage:


Nitritespecialist said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 18:59...

@Don...I know. Reports abound that eye damage from IPN happens. But it hasn't been something I have experienced from personal use of it; hence, I didn't mention it. The anemia and low BP are reason enough for me to stay away from it.

The Professor said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 19:30...

I guess the answer is that you believe your own BS eh?

I don't squelch dissent, I call out BS, and you are full of it.


"I want everyone to be informed as much as possible so they can make the best personal choice for themselves. That's been my motto from day one. "

When you were on Poppersplace, your 'motto' was to know everything there was to know about nitrites, and to be able to make a product for sale. Every few days, you'd start a topic "Oh my GOd!!!!!!" about how your latest attempt at isobutyl nitrite was the bomb; better than joe miller and asking where to buy 15ml bottles for packaging. Unfortunately, your attempts failed miserably and you got stuck on the cycle of thinking you had it made, then being disguysted at the result.


"Point being, keep an open mind when first using LRM poppers. Realize that they will change over time. Wait until they are totally dead before you make a final assessment."

you are talking about your (recent?) discovery that the alkyl nitrite composition changes with time inside the bottle, and that (of course, being a reversibaly reaction) sometimes the reactivity might increase.

Remember telling popchef "don't even try to recover a popper by adding anything to it; it has to be pure to start with or it will decompose even more quickly"? That was on popperplace, where you were on a tirade becausae those around you were having success with Butyl, and you were not.

If had a course or plan of action, you would have discovered this peculiarity years ago; instead, you focused on coming up with colorful descriptions of the noxious aromas you were creating. You never bothered to study the life cycle of the product; if you had, this discovery that made you ask "wtf is happening in this bottle?"

wtf was happening was the 10-22 cycle I identified, and now include as part of my post production process. This process address the sequestering (not just the masking) of obnoxious degradation products, as well as quality assurance testing of each batch I make.

If you'd have thought of it, you'd be bragging all over about it.

A constant in your diatribes is the 'not invented here' syndrome; where you deny any and all evidence that is contrary to your beliefs, regardless of the source; you've done it here in denying that all nitrites decompose with the same activation energy. you did it on reddit, where you denied that a cooling bath was required because naNO2 can have a slightly endothermic reaction (in reality, the 5 or 10 degree drop in temperature isn't enough, and is not persistent throughout the prep).

You denied that molecular sieve did anything at all on poppers place (and remember who's idea MS was in the first place? that's right, popchef's)

all you've done on all three forums is attempt to modify the prep to YOUR expectations, when myself and others modified the prep to the REACTANTS preferred environment.

The fact that you complain recently about evolution of NOX gasses and stained fingers reveals you are not engaging in a preferred embodiment.

A preferred embodiment generates NO gasses at all (with the exception of the final yield's evolution of nitric oxide, which is the whole point).

The Professor said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 19:33...

"I must say however....it's doing a big disservice to anyone who likes the popper effect when the comparison toxic effects of the various alkyl nitrites are hidden or downplayed."

I agree; you don't follow that philosophy at all though, given that YOU promote the MOST toxic alcohol as the best for esterification. Toxic as in ACTUALLY lethal, not obnoxious.

Nitritespecialist said on Sun, 12 Sep 2021 at 23:09...

WTF are you talking about????? I don't know anything about all the shit you just ranted on endlessly about...and yet said nothing in the end that means jack shit. I don't give a shit about home brew poppers. LRM is a professional popper making business...for over 20 years in Canada and they make high quality amyl poppers. End of story!!!!

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 00:46...

hey, YOU are the OP of this topic, and it addresses Toxicity of various alkyl nitrites.

I replied to the falsehoods in your post; you didn;t like that (as a 'my way or the highway' personality type will tend to do ( https://sarateller.com/my-way-or-the-highway/ )

and now you both pack-pedal and change the goalpost; two fallacies in one.

Nitritespecialist said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 16:12...

WTF are you mentioning the relative toxicity of amyl alcohol....it's NOT the alkyl nitrite itself. The toxicity of amyl alcohol is typically measured by liquid consumption of it, just like ethanol. Alkyl nitrites and any base alcohol that may be found unreacted in them are NOT supposed to be swallowed.

So why the fuck are you just throwing more confusion into your lies upon lies.

Nitritespecialist said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 16:15...

All the alkyl nitrite will kill you if swallowed.....mostly via anemia and low blood pressure. If that's not lethal plus toxic...I don't know what is. Claiming that amyl alcohol is toxic/lethal when swallowed means nothing is just meant to confound and befuddle those who can't see through all the BS and lies.

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 17:31...

liquid niitrite is deadly, yes, and you and popchef went back and forth on this years ago on reddit; you responded with your typical straw man
and goalpost fallacies (are yoiu are doing right now), and I point to the truth of the issue.

did you not see the chromatographs of street samples of nitrite? they have HIGH concentrations of the base alcohol in them.

you SHOULD have learned the difference between LD50 and LC50 after a few rounds with popchef on reddit; you were humiliated by that chemist (who's name I can't recall) who intervened in the topic, to tell you that you didn't know what you were talking about. (gee, seems like ANYTIME you come in contact woith a chemist, they mention how insane your ideas are, EVEN HERE; te difference between other chemists and me is that I reply to your falsehoods and they just move on (or in this forum's case, use the alias 'anonymous' and stay that way.

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 17:43...

LC50 of n-Pentanol in rats, 96 hour exposure is 470 mg/L
LC50 of n-Butanol in rats, 96 hour exposure is 1940 mg/L

n- Pentanol is at least 4 times more toxic

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 18:50...

that's LC50 (as in inhaled) not LD50 (as in ingested)

Rob said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 19:26...

well that went well then.........

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 21:11...

R. Don

yes, isopropyl nitrite has been known to cause permanent macular degenerqation, particularly in the fovea (the center of your vision, with the sharpest acuity (and therefore higher retinal cone concentration).

generally, in the retina, rods respond to light, and cones respond to color.

the active ingredient in any alkyl nitrite is nitric oxide (NO). it's resposible for the effects. NO also effects the eye's photoreceptor (rods) metabolism and function. Isopropykl gets the heat for this mostly because the other nitrites don't provide NO at such high concentrations.

The problem isn't restricted to isopropyl nitrite, it can happen with butyls and amyls also, since they degrade into much more volatile nitRATes.

Anything that provides NO at a higher rate than your body can metabolize will effect your fovea. The result is usually some sort of glowing ring (phosphenes) around the fovea. The fovea is very fragile, though, and over-saturationg of the Rods can physically damage them (a permanent situation).

IN that manner, Isopropyl has a bad rep, and is to be avoided IMO, but it's not technically a lethal response (the LC50 techs don't care if the rat went blind, they just care when the rat is dead).

Thus, the balancing act I talked about earlier; the balance between having to huff a more lethal prodiuct continuously (hexyls and amyls) or only getting a few hits in before you damage your eyes (anything above the reactivity of NO (propyl, isopropyl, ethyl and methyl)

The Professor said on Mon, 13 Sep 2021 at 21:54...

correction; I got twisted along the way; rods react to light, cones react to color, the fovea has a high concentration of RODS and is very sensitive to increased pressure caused by swamping the bloodstream with NO

Nitritespecialist said on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 00:56...

Now if we could just tell the Australian government that they got it all wrong.....they should have kept amyl nitrite very illegal instead of lowering it to Schedule 3, available in a drug store without a script. They kept the butyls in Schedule 4, which does require a script. Hmmmm....too bad they think amyl is safer than butyls. We all know amyl nitrite had such a strong safety record that it became available OTC in 1960. But now we know the whole truth. IPN, IBN and BN are much much less toxic and therefore safer.

The Professor said on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 01:23...

More reduction to the absurd eh? If you must, but you only make yourself look foolish

Nitritespecialist said on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 12:13...

Oh yeah...when you are cornered with the obvious, you deflect, deviate, attack and insult. Same old same old...pointing to what's abundantly clear....lies upon lies.

The Professor said on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 16:09...

I think I know what's going on here, you are arguing with yourself.

Take the hand you are using to point fingers, and realize that there are three more fingers pointing back at YOU

The Professor said on Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 16:10...

Sad...... Hilarious........ But sad

Want to post a follow-up?
  Go ahead:

Your name or nickname:

Your message:


Unless otherwise noted, all contents of this website are
Copyright © 2011-2017 Jack Tinoco. That said, you can use my
images and article excerpts subject to these conditions.