Fire or tsunami

Post Reply New Topic

Would you rather die by tsunami or being burned by fire?

I chose Tsunami.

Tim

I would die by Tsunami

could I merge the 2 and die by pyroclastic flow - I think fire would happen to slowly, but tsunami would be less fair on the rescuers.
With a pyroclastic flow you would suffocate and burn at the same time.

I think most people have thought about dying by fire long before this thread, but most haven't thought about dying by tsunami... dying by fire just seems so slow and painful, compared to being picked up and slammed into a rooftop and torn in half, or drowning while you're rushing through the water at 80mph, bouncing off of cars and stuff, or ... is it too late to change my answer?

I don't know. Both seem potentially traumatic, but it would depend on the scenario. If the fire killed me by smoke inhalation or CO poisoning (as most fire deaths occur that way), then that would be a little easier. In fact, in the past I have considered dying by inhaling car exhaust until I go unconscious. On the other hand physically burning to death would be entirely too slow and painful to even consider.

Likewise, a tsunami could slam me into a brick wall and kill me instantly, which wouldn't be as bad, but it could also pin me under debris where I would slowly drown over 5 or 6 agonizing minutes. It would totally depend on the scenario in either case. But suffice it to say that slow and agonizing is not on my "to do" list in any case.

Tsunami probably.

Tsunami.

Tsunami, unless the fire death could be by smoke inhalation. That might not be so bad. If it meant burning to death though, definitely tsunami.

0 for fire because FIRE f*****g HURTS LIKE HELL!! !

FIRE, I CAN SURVIVE FIRE.

Tsunami

I vote fire because it would be quick

Death by tsunami just seems so much less painful

neither, burning to death doesnt sound cool and drowning justs sucks

Tsunami, because I'm a good swimmer and would at least have a moment of hope. Fire hurts...a lot!! !