How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

[Ann Marie Brest]

I'm not sure WHERE to ask this, but, how does a wet cloth
work in an airplane crash anyway?

In step 3 at 45 seconds into this video shows it in use:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXaTtsnZZz0&feature=player_detailpage#t=49

What's the wet cloth (scientifically) doing?

[Frank]

http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf

[Bob F]

My guess would be that the wet cloth catches many of the smoke particles, and
the water will cool the air you inhale.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:16:19 -0400, Frank wrote:

>> What's the wet cloth (scientifically) doing?
> http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf

That nicely summarized FAA article explains:
- Smoke is a complex of particulate matter, invisible combustion gases & vapors suspended in the fire atmosphere.
- Inhalation of toxic gases in smoke is the primary cause of fatalities
- Carbon monoxide & hydrogen cyanide are the principal toxic combustion gases
- Carbon monoxide combines with the hemoglobin in blood and interferes with the oxygen supply to tissues
- Hydrogen cyanide inhibits oxygen utilization at the cellular level.
- Carbon dioxide is a relatively innocuous fire gas, increases respiration rate causing an increase in the uptake of other combustion gases
- Irritant gases, such as hydrogen chloride and acrolein, are generated from burning wire insulation
- Generally, carbon dioxide levels increase while oxygen concentrations decrease during fires.

And then finally, the article suggests:
- Cloth held over the nose and mouth will provide protection from smoke particulates;
- If the cloth is wet, it will also absorb most of the water-soluble gases (i.e., hydrogen cyanide & hydrogen chloride).

What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.

So, now we're left with the a WET cloth absorbing water-soluble gases.
Of the two water-soluble gases, only hydrogen cyanide was listed in
the article as being a safety issue (the other water-soluble gas was
merely an irritant).

So, I guess we finally have the answer to "why the wet cloth?".

The WET CLOTH filters out (water soluble) hydrogen cyanide:
"Hydrogen cyanide poisoning signs & symptoms are weakness, dizziness, headache,
nausea, vomiting, coma, convulsions, & death. Death results from respiratory arrest.
Hydrogen cyanide gas acts rapidly. Symptoms & death can both occur quickly."

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:22:53 -0700, Bob F wrote:

> My guess would be that the wet cloth catches many of the smoke particles,
> and the water will cool the air you inhale.

Based on the one referenced FAA article, the dry cloth does nothing for
safety, but a wet cloth reduces the water-soluble hydrogen cyanide gases.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:30:48 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

> Based on the one referenced FAA article, the dry cloth does nothing for
> safety, but a wet cloth reduces the water-soluble hydrogen cyanide gases.

Armed with the new keywords "wet cloth hydrogen cyanide", I find more
on the toxicity of HCN over here:

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/MMG/MMG.asp?id=1141&tid=249
"Hydrogen cyanide is readily absorbed from the lungs; symptoms of poisoning
begin within seconds to minutes. The odor of hydrogen cyanide is detectable
at 2-10 ppm (OSHA PEL = 10 ppm), but does not provide adequate warning of
hazardous concentrations. Perception of the odor is a genetic trait
(20% to 40% of the general population cannot detect hydrogen cyanide);
also, rapid olfactory fatigue can occur. Hydrogen cyanide is lighter than air.
Children exposed to the same levels of hydrogen cyanide as adults may
receive larger doses because they have greater lung surface area:body
weight ratios and increased minute volumes:weight ratios."

"Hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant.
By binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase, it prevents the utilization
of oxygen in cellular metabolism. The CNS and myocardium are particularly
sensitive to the toxic effects of cyanide."

"In the United States, antidotes for cyanide include amyl nitrite perles
and intravenous infusions of sodium nitrite and sodium thiosulfate,
which are packaged in the cyanide antidote kit."

But, what we need to know is how effective is the wet cloth in reducing
the hydrogen cyanide gases in the cabin air.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:41:06 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

> Armed with the new keywords "wet cloth hydrogen cyanide", I find more
> on the toxicity of HCN over here:

And, here's what OSHA has to say about the dangers of HCN:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0333.pdf

"[Hydrogen cyanide] is capable of bringing to a halt all
cellular respiration".

"A few inhalations of high concentrations of HCN may be
followed by almost instantaneous collapse and cessation
of respiration."

"270ppm HCN is immediately fatal to humans"
"181ppm HCN is fatal after 10 minutes"
"135ppm HCN is fatal after 30 minutes"
"110ppm HCN is fatal after 60 minutes"

"Humans tolerate 45ppm to 54ppm for 1/2 to 1 hour without
immediate or delayed effects, while 18ppm to 36ppm may
result in symptoms after exposure for several hours."

So, the key question is what the HCN concentrations are in
a typical airplane cabin fire?

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:52:45 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

>> Armed with the new keywords "wet cloth hydrogen cyanide", I find more
>> on the toxicity of HCN over here:

This flight safety PDF titled "Guarding the airways", is of interest:
http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf

It mentions only that the "wet cloth" prevents irritation, which we're
not concerned with in this discussion.

They also explained that the "dry" heat of a cabin fire isn't of great concern:
"the human body’s upper airway naturally provides significant protection
to the lower airway and lungs against extreme heat from hot, dry air".

I'm pretty surprised about those findings, but they in this article
specifically about guarding your airway during an airplane cabin fire.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:00:28 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

> I'm pretty surprised about those findings, but they in this article
> specifically about guarding your airway during an airplane cabin fire.

This Airbus briefing discusses HOW to use the wet towels properly:
http://airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-CAB_OPS-SEQ06.pdf

"Use wet towels, a wet cloth, or a head rest cover to reduce some of
the effects of smoke inhalation. Instruct passengers to hold the wet
towel/cloth over their noses and mouth and breathe through it."
.
This onboard emergency description mentions not to use ALCOHOL:
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/1999/apr/apr_fire.pdf

"To limit the effects of toxic fumes, a wet cloth should be
placed over your nose and mouth (a headrest cover or any other
available fabric is suitable). Use water, soft drink or other
non-alcoholic beverages to moisten the fabric."

Given that alcoholic drinks are almost all water anyway, I wonder
why they bothered to mention non-alcoholic drinks?

Does alcohol on the wet fabric do anything different with HCN?

[nestork]

I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.

During World War One, Canadian soldiers being attacked with chlorine gas
(called "Mustard Gas" at the time because of it's yellow-green colour)
were told to urinate into their handkerchiefs and to breathe through
that wet cloth. The chlorine gas would dissolve in the water as it
passed through the handkerchief, thereby keeping our troops safe and
alive.




--
nestork

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:00:28 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

> They also explained that the "dry" heat of a cabin fire isn't of great concern:
> "the human body’s upper airway naturally provides significant protection
> to the lower airway and lungs against extreme heat from hot, dry air".

Here they mention the heat inside your body during a cabin fire:
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.html

"In an aircraft accident that involves a fuel-fed fire, cabin air
temperatures could be expected to reach 662 degrees F (350 degrees C)
and higher. During inhalation, the air temperature might be reduced to
between 360 degrees F and 302 degrees F (182 degrees C and 150 degrees C
[respectively]) by the time the air reached the larynx"

They also mention the wet towel, although they talk about things
that aren't safety related (apparently only the HCN is what we care
about for the wet towel):

“Wet towels will filter out smoke particles, acid gases such as
hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride, and hydrogen cyanide.
Breathing through clothing will also filter out smoke particles,
but it will be less effective in filtering out acid gases
and hydrogen cyanide. Neither a wet towel nor clothing will
filter out carbon monoxide.”

As an aside, they mentioned that slowing down people for one
second could cost one life, so, you don't want incapacitated
people blocking the aisles.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:19:33 +0200, nestork wrote:

> I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
> particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.

Until I read the referenced articles, I would also have believed that
filtering the smoke itself might have been a key safety issue.

But, we don't have any proof yet that smoke particles are anything
we care about from an inhalation standpoint during a cabin fire.

In fact, this detailed article about all the negative effects of
a fire mainly discuss "smoke density" as a visual impairment factor,
and not as a critical inhalent (see page 39 of 47):

"Compilation of Data on the Sublethal Effects of Fire Effluent"
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire09/PDF/f09033.pdf

What we seem to care about is hydrogen cyanide, which is soluble
in water. So the web towel apparently absorbs the HCN before you do.

On page 19 of 47, there is a table of the results of experiments
of HCN gases on a variety of mammals, since they say only one
human study was ever done. However, it's hard for me to
extrapolate that table to what happens in a real cabin fire.

So, what we really need is the key datapoint:
a. What is the concentration of HCN in a typical aircraft fire?

[Bob F]

Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:19:33 +0200, nestork wrote:
>
>> I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
>> particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.
>
> Until I read the referenced articles, I would also have believed that
> filtering the smoke itself might have been a key safety issue.
>
> But, we don't have any proof yet that smoke particles are anything
> we care about from an inhalation standpoint during a cabin fire.

A friend of mine was hospitalized for smole inhalation. They would come in
regularly and pound the hell out of his chest to break loose the crud in his
lungs so the body could try to eliminate it. Inhaled particulate matter can
without a doubt do significant damage.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:46:22 -0700, Bob F wrote:

> Inhaled particulate matter can without a doubt do significant damage.

I would tend to wish to agree, since we've all heard about firefighters
being treated for "smoke inhalation".

However, if particulates were a thread to life, why wouldn't the FAA
and the other cabin fire articles previously posted mention smoke
particles as anything more than an irritant?

Science, being what science is, doesn't always agree with our gut
feelings.

[micky]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>I'm not sure WHERE to ask this, but, how does a wet cloth
>work in an airplane crash anyway?

Why do they always boil water when a baby is coming?

Do babies drink coffee?

(on TV)

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:26:21 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:16:19 -0400, Frank wrote:
>
>>> What's the wet cloth (scientifically) doing?
>> http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf
>
>That nicely summarized FAA article explains:
>- Smoke is a complex of particulate matter, invisible combustion gases & vapors suspended in the fire atmosphere.
>- Inhalation of toxic gases in smoke is the primary cause of fatalities
>- Carbon monoxide & hydrogen cyanide are the principal toxic combustion gases
>- Carbon monoxide combines with the hemoglobin in blood and interferes with the oxygen supply to tissues
>- Hydrogen cyanide inhibits oxygen utilization at the cellular level.
>- Carbon dioxide is a relatively innocuous fire gas, increases respiration rate causing an increase in the uptake of other combustion gases
>- Irritant gases, such as hydrogen chloride and acrolein, are generated from burning wire insulation
>- Generally, carbon dioxide levels increase while oxygen concentrations decrease during fires.
>
>And then finally, the article suggests:
>- Cloth held over the nose and mouth will provide protection from smoke particulates;
>- If the cloth is wet, it will also absorb most of the water-soluble gases (i.e., hydrogen cyanide & hydrogen chloride).

Wow. That's good to have suggested. I certainly don't need any HCn or
HCl.

>
>What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
>of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
>is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
>merely a convenience,

How can we safely assume that? I'd assume the opposite.

> and not a safety issue.

I think what you have is a 3-page** article where they decided to be
brief and not emphasize every problem. It's meant as advice and not a
scientific paper, so they've taken a short, clear-cut approach.

**Less than 3, given the pictures and the line spacing.

>So, now we're left with the a WET cloth absorbing water-soluble gases.
>Of the two water-soluble gases, only hydrogen cyanide was listed in
>the article as being a safety issue (the other water-soluble gas was
>merely an irritant).

Irritants irritate me. Anyhow, when HCl mixes with water it turns
into hydrocholoric acid, one of the stronger acids. I don't want that
in my lungs.

>So, I guess we finally have the answer to "why the wet cloth?".
>
>The WET CLOTH filters out (water soluble) hydrogen cyanide:
> "Hydrogen cyanide poisoning signs & symptoms are weakness, dizziness, headache,
> nausea, vomiting, coma, convulsions, & death. Death results from respiratory arrest.
> Hydrogen cyanide gas acts rapidly. Symptoms & death can both occur quickly."

Yes, that's how they kill people in the gas chamber.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:19:33 +0200, nestork

<nestork...@diybanter.com> wrote:

>
>I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
>particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.
>
>During World War One, Canadian soldiers being attacked with chlorine gas
>(called "Mustard Gas" at the time because of it's yellow-green colour)
>were told to urinate into their handkerchiefs and to breathe through

Hey, finally a benefit from my prostate problems. And truly, I was
just now wondering where to get water for the wet cloth.

>that wet cloth. The chlorine gas would dissolve in the water as it
>passed through the handkerchief, thereby keeping our troops safe and
>alive.

Do you remember Everett Dirkson and how he talked. I read many years
ago that that was from being gassed in WWI, not enough to be killed
obviously. Couldn't find a trace about that on the web, even though
wikip or something remarked on his voice.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:19:33 +0200, nestork wrote:
>
>> I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
>> particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.
>
>Until I read the referenced articles, I would also have believed that
>filtering the smoke itself might have been a key safety issue.
>
>But, we don't have any proof yet that smoke particles are anything
>we care about from an inhalation standpoint during a cabin fire.

I think we're allowed to take judicial notice of everything else we've
learned in our lives.

It is frequenty reported that someone dies of smoke inhalation. That's
certainly something to care about. It may take longer than dying from
cynanide, but it's still bad.

I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.

>
>In fact, this detailed article about all the negative effects of
>a fire mainly discuss "smoke density" as a visual impairment factor,
>and not as a critical inhalent (see page 39 of 47):
>
>"Compilation of Data on the Sublethal Effects of Fire Effluent"
>http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire09/PDF/f09033.pdf
>
>What we seem to care about is hydrogen cyanide, which is soluble
>in water. So the web towel apparently absorbs the HCN before you do.
>
>On page 19 of 47, there is a table of the results of experiments
>of HCN gases on a variety of mammals, since they say only one
>human study was ever done. However, it's hard for me to
>extrapolate that table to what happens in a real cabin fire.
>
>So, what we really need is the key datapoint:
>a. What is the concentration of HCN in a typical aircraft fire?

Who says there is a typical aircraft fire wrt HCN?

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:00:28 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:52:45 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>
>>> Armed with the new keywords "wet cloth hydrogen cyanide", I find more
>>> on the toxicity of HCN over here:
>
>This flight safety PDF titled "Guarding the airways", is of interest:
>http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf
>
>It mentions only that the "wet cloth" prevents irritation, which we're
>not concerned with in this discussion.

Speak for yourself, John.

[Hugh Briss]

On 05/15/2014 11:26 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
> of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
> is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
> merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.

Yes, a rag soaked in the proper solvent will perform better than a dry rag.
This is why you should have a properly labeled 4 oz bottle of dihydrogen monoxide in your carry on bag.

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:46:22 -0700, Bob F wrote:
>
>
>
> > Inhaled particulate matter can without a doubt do significant damage.
>
>
>
> I would tend to wish to agree, since we've all heard about firefighters
>
> being treated for "smoke inhalation".
>
>
>
> However, if particulates were a thread to life, why wouldn't the FAA
>
> and the other cabin fire articles previously posted mention smoke
>
> particles as anything more than an irritant?
>
>

As others have said, they focused on the main cause of deaths in fires
and that is the gases. That doesn't mean that particles are not also
dangerous and life threatening. People that wind up hospitalized or die,
typically die from a combined effect of everything to their lungs, ie gases,
heat, particulate inhalation. It makes sense the gases are the most
serious, but if you had some exposure to toxic gases, would you rather
show up at the hospital with just that, or with your lungs full of soot
and the irritation from that too? Some of these people just barely survive
and whether they've inhaled particulates or not could make the difference.

>
> Science, being what science is, doesn't always agree with our gut
>
> feelings.

Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically mention
something, doesn't constitute science.

[RobertMacy]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:24:46 -0700, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> ..snip....

> Why do they always boil water when a baby is coming?
>
> Do babies drink coffee?
>
> (on TV)
>

>> ...snip...

LOL! just popped out for a spot of tea?

However the heat from the hot water and towels dilates the cervix really
fast, but does increase the risk of infection.

Years ago, newspapers were used too, because they were steam press rolled
and sterilized, but not today.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/16/2014 8:29 AM, Hugh Briss wrote:
>
> Yes, a rag soaked in the proper solvent will perform better than a dry rag.
> This is why you should have a properly labeled 4 oz bottle of dihydrogen
> monoxide in your carry on bag.

You should know that inhaling that will kill you.
And at high temperatures, the vapors can be lethal,
also. And you want people to carry it on PLANES!
Shesh!.

For safety, all passengers should fly nude. Discounts
offered to cheerleaders squads who get frequent flier
miles.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:34:02 -0400, micky wrote:

> we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
>>merely a convenience,
>
> How can we safely assume that? I'd assume the opposite.

I also would have assumed the opposite, had I not read the
articles, which prove our assumptions invalid.

The other articles on cabin fires went into nice detail
as to how hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant by
binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase.

They explicitly stated that smoke particles are not
deadly in an airplane crash.

So, what you, or I, would have assumed about smoke itself
being deadly, is apparently wrong.

If you still think your (and my) initial assumption is right,
then what we need is an article about cabin fires which says
both that the smoke particles are deadly, and, that a wet
cloth reduces them.

Otherwise, we're just making non-scientific assumptions.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

> Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically
> mention something, doesn't constitute science.

Science isn't what you are I guess.
Science is what can be tested & proven.

I'd be glad if you can find a tested/proven article on airplane fires
which says that smoke particles, in and of themselves, constitute a
life-threatening danger in the time it takes to exit a burning airplane.

We found more than a half dozen sources, including scientific papers,
none of which said that the smoke particles were the immediate danger in
cabin fires - nor did we find anything that said a wet cloth filters them
out.

If we are to assume smoke particles are a life-threatening danger, we'd
have to find at least one scientific article that said that the
particulate matter itself could kill us in the time of a cabin fire.

Even then, we'd have to know that a wet towel would filter out those
particles.

I looked for papers backing up our (apparently erroneous) assumptions.
I can't find any.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 5/16/2014 9:15 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

>
> For safety, all passengers should fly nude. Discounts
> offered to cheerleaders squads who get frequent flier
> miles.
>

Looking around right now, including looking in a mirror, I'd want a
blindfold! I'm willing to make exceptions, but most of the time, a
blindfold would keep you from getting an upset tummy.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:

> I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
> fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.

I agree that we don't have actual ppm levels documented yet, but,
we do know that the hydrogen cyanide gas is deadly within minutes.

One of the papers said death ensues within minutes.

Another one discussed how a hundred people died, none of whom
had traumatic injury, all of whom died from the toxicity of
the gases in the fire.

What we don't know is the ppm concentration REDUCTION that
a wet towel provides us.

[Buck Nekid]

On 05/16/2014 05:15 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 8:29 AM, Hugh Briss wrote:
>>
>> Yes, a rag soaked in the proper solvent will perform better than a dry rag.
>> This is why you should have a properly labeled 4 oz bottle of dihydrogen
>> monoxide in your carry on bag.
>
> You should know that inhaling that will kill you.
> And at high temperatures, the vapors can be lethal,
> also. And you want people to carry it on PLANES!
> Shesh!.
>

DHMO also contributes to severe weather and flash flooding.

[Bob F]

micky wrote:
>> So, what we really need is the key datapoint:
>> a. What is the concentration of HCN in a typical aircraft fire?
>
> Who says there is a typical aircraft fire wrt HCN?

Maybe we should use natural materials in airplane interiors.

Understanding CO and HCN is especially crucial to today's fire service, because
the smoke that firefighters were exposed to 20 or 30 years ago is not the same
as it is today. Wood, cellulose, cotton, silk, wool, etc., were bad decades ago,
but they were nowhere near as toxic as the chemically-manufactured materials of
today. When combined in a fire situation, these chemicals are often referred to
as "the breath from hell"2 and include compounds such as:
a.. Acetyls-aerosol containers, combs, lighters and pens
b.. Acrylics-glues, food packages and skylights
c.. Nylons-various household containers, brushes, sewing thread and fishing
line
d.. Polyesters-hair dryers, computers and kitchen appliances
e.. Polypropylene-bottles, diapers and furniture
f.. Polyurethanes-shoes and cushions
g.. Polyvinyl chlorides (PVC)-carpet, clothes, purses, records and shower
curtains
h.. Thermo sets-TVs, coatings, toilets, buttons, flooring and insulation
http://www.firefighternation.com/article/firefighter-safety-and-health/carbon-monoxide-hydrogen-cyanide-make-today-s-fires-more-dangerous

[RobertMacy]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 06:51:56 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>> ...snip...

> The other articles on cabin fires went into nice detail
> as to how hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant by
> binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase.
>
> They explicitly stated that smoke particles are not
> deadly in an airplane crash.
>
> So, what you, or I, would have assumed about smoke itself
> being deadly, is apparently wrong.
>
> If you still think your (and my) initial assumption is right,
> then what we need is an article about cabin fires which says
> both that the smoke particles are deadly, and, that a wet
> cloth reduces them.
>
> Otherwise, we're just making non-scientific assumptions.
>

Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires? After
personally experiencing a major fire in a building adjacent to our home, I
learned to apprecaite that aspect. For certain, a wet cloth over the head
would help shield. To see the potential shielding just envision sticking
your head into a barbecue pit with, and without, the wet towel. The air
into your lungs gets cooled so won't sear as much and at least your
corneas should remain intact.

[RobertMacy]

I also heard that in the field urinate upon a 'dirty' wound to wash it,
because urine is more sanitary than all that muck in there.

Also, heard good for jelly fish sting, at least appears in some films as
such.

[RobertMacy]

LOL! and now the Europeans have caught our 'fat' virus!

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per RobertMacy:

>I also heard that in the field urinate upon a 'dirty' wound to wash it,
>because urine is more sanitary than all that muck in there.
>
>Also, heard good for jelly fish sting, at least appears in some films as
>such.

With the caution that that only applies to your own jelly fish sting...
or, at least, a sting on somebody you know really, really well.... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank]

On 5/15/2014 11:26 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:16:19 -0400, Frank wrote:
>
>>> What's the wet cloth (scientifically) doing?
>> http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf
>
> That nicely summarized FAA article explains:
> - Smoke is a complex of particulate matter, invisible combustion gases & vapors suspended in the fire atmosphere.
> - Inhalation of toxic gases in smoke is the primary cause of fatalities
> - Carbon monoxide & hydrogen cyanide are the principal toxic combustion gases
> - Carbon monoxide combines with the hemoglobin in blood and interferes with the oxygen supply to tissues
> - Hydrogen cyanide inhibits oxygen utilization at the cellular level.
> - Carbon dioxide is a relatively innocuous fire gas, increases respiration rate causing an increase in the uptake of other combustion gases
> - Irritant gases, such as hydrogen chloride and acrolein, are generated from burning wire insulation
> - Generally, carbon dioxide levels increase while oxygen concentrations decrease during fires.
>
> And then finally, the article suggests:
> - Cloth held over the nose and mouth will provide protection from smoke particulates;
> - If the cloth is wet, it will also absorb most of the water-soluble gases (i.e., hydrogen cyanide & hydrogen chloride).
>

> What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
> of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
> is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
> merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.
>

> So, now we're left with the a WET cloth absorbing water-soluble gases.
> Of the two water-soluble gases, only hydrogen cyanide was listed in
> the article as being a safety issue (the other water-soluble gas was
> merely an irritant).
>

> So, I guess we finally have the answer to "why the wet cloth?".
>
> The WET CLOTH filters out (water soluble) hydrogen cyanide:
> "Hydrogen cyanide poisoning signs & symptoms are weakness, dizziness, headache,
> nausea, vomiting, coma, convulsions, & death. Death results from respiratory arrest.
> Hydrogen cyanide gas acts rapidly. Symptoms & death can both occur quickly."
>

If I'm in a burning about to crash plane, I think the last thing I would
worry about would be the smoke ;)

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:09:03 -0700, RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:19:33 -0700, nestork
><nestork...@diybanter.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
>> particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.
>>
>> During World War One, Canadian soldiers being attacked with chlorine gas
>> (called "Mustard Gas" at the time because of it's yellow-green colour)
>> were told to urinate into their handkerchiefs and to breathe through
>> that wet cloth. The chlorine gas would dissolve in the water as it
>> passed through the handkerchief, thereby keeping our troops safe and
>> alive.
>>
>I also heard that in the field urinate upon a 'dirty' wound to wash it,
>because urine is more sanitary than all that muck in there.

Unless one has a urinary tract infection, urine is sterile, aiui**.

I think that means two bottles of urine can't make a baby.

**so you're right.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:24:46 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
><annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure WHERE to ask this, but, how does a wet cloth
>>work in an airplane crash anyway?
>
>Why do they always boil water when a baby is coming?

Something to keep the father occupied and out of the way.

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:51:56 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:34:02 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>
>
> > we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
>
> >>merely a convenience,
>
> >
>
> > How can we safely assume that? I'd assume the opposite.
>
>
>
> I also would have assumed the opposite, had I not read the
>
> articles, which prove our assumptions invalid.
>
>

Your making all kinds of bizarre leaps here. Just because inhalation
of smoke particles during a fire isn't mentioned as deadly or the
major cause of fatalities, doesn't mean that it's just an inconvenience.
Some people die just from an asthma attack, so it seems entirely
possible that inhaling soot could be a factor in whether somone survives
or not. Most serious fire victims are going to have heat, gas, and
particle inhalation and I would expect that you could have patients
that survive because they didn't have the additional burden of the
particles, while others that did inhale it die. The leading cause,
the thing to be most worried about, etc is still the gases and heat,
but that doesn't mean particle inhalation is just an inconvenience.

>
> The other articles on cabin fires went into nice detail
>
> as to how hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant by
>
> binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase.
>
>
>
> They explicitly stated that smoke particles are not
>
> deadly in an airplane crash.
>
>

IDK what other article you're talking about. Link?

>
> So, what you, or I, would have assumed about smoke itself
>
> being deadly, is apparently wrong.
>
>
>
> If you still think your (and my) initial assumption is right,
>
> then what we need is an article about cabin fires which says
>
> both that the smoke particles are deadly, and, that a wet
>
> cloth reduces them.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, we're just making non-scientific assumptions.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-162/issue-8/features/toxicology-of-smoke-inhalation.html

So far, all I see is you making wild assumptions. You're taking
a fire guide for idiots from the FAA, as a scientific source.
It's not. It's a layman's guide. It also looks like it could have
been written in the 50's or 60's. And then you infer that because
they don't say something, that means that soot inhalation is not
a serious, possibly life threatening factor? It's just an inconvenience?

Here, from Fire Engineering. Not exactly a medical authority, but
it is a lot more detailed as to the effects.

"Autopsy and experimental data show that serious injury and death result from exposure to contact irritants, primarily hydrogen chloride, and the central systemic poisons, carbon monoxide (CO) and cyanide.1 Contact irritants cause cellular damage and death. In response to irritants, cells release fluids, causing massive edema. Additional inflammatory responses cause cells to lose integrity and die.2

Systemic poisons are absorbed into the blood through the lungs. They act on specific cells in the body or within specific parts of every cell. Systemic poisons either inhibit critical cell functions or cause cellular death.

Contact irritants include particulate matter such as soot. Particles larger than five microns will lodge in the upper airways, causing mechanical obstruction. They are observed in the nose and the mouth. Particles smaller than one micron are inhaled deep into the lungs, where the carbonaceous soot is toxic to the macrophages. Macrophages are cells that remove foreign particles. Heavy metals coating the surface of soot cause direct lung damage by forming free oxygen radicals which damage cilia and alveolar surfaces."

That doesn't sound like just an inconvenience.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

> Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires?

Yes.

We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about
protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said
that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern
when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf

As already noted, they said, verbatim:
"the human bodyοΏ½s upper airway naturally provides significant
protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme
heat from hot, dry air."

Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*
about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot
air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of
the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

> For certain, a wet cloth over the head
> would help shield. To see the potential shielding just envision sticking
> your head into a barbecue pit with, and without, the wet towel. The air
> into your lungs gets cooled so won't sear as much and at least your
> corneas should remain intact.

I used to think that jumping up into the air when an elevator
crashes to the ground, would stop me from crashing along with
it. It's not supported by the facts.

Neither is the theory that the wet cloth is there to protect
us from the heat of the air during a cabin fire supported by
*any* of the flight-safety references we have so far been able
to find.

Sounds good. I'd believe it myself, if I was just guessing.

But, there's *nothing* in those flight-safety PDFs that says
that the wet cloth protects against heat in a cabin fire.

Now that's not to say that a cabin fire isn't *hot*.
For example, this previously listed PDF shows the temperatures
that can be reached in the cabin during a fuel-fed fire are
extremely *HOT!*.

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.html
"In an aircraft accident that involves a fuel-fed fire, cabin air
temperatures could be expected to reach 662 degrees F (350 degrees C)
and higher. During inhalation, the air temperature might be
reduced to between 360 degrees F and 302 degrees F
(182 degrees C and 150 degrees C [respectively]) by the time
the air reached the larynx"

That article mentions that the wet cloth might filter out
smoke particles (which don't seem to be an immediate danger),
but it doesn't even hint at that wet cloth cooling down the
air.

So, unless someone comes up with a good reference, I think we
can safely say that the *assumption* that the wet cloth is
there to cool down the air breathed in a cabin fire is a false
assumption (however good it seems to "sound" to most of us).

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:50:29 -0700, RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:24:46 -0700, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> ..snip....
>> Why do they always boil water when a baby is coming?
>>
>> Do babies drink coffee?
>>
>> (on TV)
>>
>>> ...snip...
>
>LOL! just popped out for a spot of tea?
>
>However the heat from the hot water and towels dilates the cervix really
>fast, but does increase the risk of infection.

Are you serious? (real question, no exasperation intended)

They poured the hot water in her to dilate the cervix?????? What do
they do when they're not in a farm house in 1920? Same thing?

[trader_4]

Just because some basic guides on what to do in a fire, don't specifically say something one way or the other, you can't "safely assume" anything.
Yet you keep doing it.

You've assumed that particle inhalation from fires is
just an inconvenience and not a contributor to injury
or death. Even you own reference, from above,
which you cite above, says otherwise. On page 29 at the bottom
right they say that soot and particle inhalation is one of the
primary sources of inhalation injury. .

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:

> It is frequenty reported that someone dies of smoke inhalation.

It's frequently reported that people die of heartbreak also.
And that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.
And that Moses parted the water of the Red Sea.
Or that George Washington had wooden teeth.
Or that Benjamin Franklin publicly proposed the wild turkey be
used (instead of the bald eagle) as the symbol of the US.
Or that Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average
Frenchman of his time.
etc.

Lots of things are "frequently reported" and just as frequently
untrue. That's why I had asked for "scientific" answers.

Anyone can guess wrong.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> As others have said, they focused on the main cause of deaths in fires
> and that is the gases. That doesn't mean that particles are not also
> dangerous and life threatening.

Nothing I found, so far, says that the particles are life
threatening.

The HCN gas can kill you in a couple of minutes, for example.

There was one reference which did say the wet cloth trapped particulate
matter:
http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.html

So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles,
but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation"
(presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately
dangerous, or the *reason* for the wet cloth.

Based on the evidence repoted to date, the reason for the wet rag
seems to be to trap water soluble gases, of which HCN is the most
dangerous in a cabin fire (according to all the references).

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't
> specifically mention something, doesn't constitute science.

If nobody can show *any* reasonable evidence of what they're
supposing (i.e., guessing), what does *that* constitute?

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

> Just because some basic guides on what to do in a fire,
> don't specifically say something one way or the other,
> you can't "safely assume" anything.
> Yet you keep doing it.

You appear to have completely misread my actions, so I must
not have been clear enough in the purpose of this thread.

I apologize.

The question is one of survivability science.

It's about how a wet cloth helps someone *survive* during
the time it takes to get out of an airplane during a cabin
fire.

I started with zero assumptions.

The only assumptions "I" have made during this thread are
those that are stated in the aforementioned flight safety
references.

Other people made a whole bunch of assumptions, some of
which are supported in the references, but some are not
supported in *any* of the references.

If someone makes a supposition that is actually supported
by a reasonable reference that they provide, I'd be *glad*
to listen to their assumption and to read their reference!

That's the whole reason for asking the question in the
first place!

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:00:46 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically
>
> > mention something, doesn't constitute science.
>
>
>
> Science isn't what you are I guess.
>
> Science is what can be tested & proven.
>
>

I've forgotten more science than you'll ever know. You started
off with a guide for dummies from the FAA. Besides not being
really scientific at all, it looks like it could have been
written in the 50's. It's just a guide to get people to suggest
people use a wet cloth. But whatever, you then proceed to use the
fact that they don't specifically state something, to it being
safe to assume that "particle inhalation during a fire is just
an inconvenience"

>
> I'd be glad if you can find a tested/proven article on airplane fires
>
> which says that smoke particles, in and of themselves, constitute a
>
> life-threatening danger in the time it takes to exit a burning airplane.
>

Now you're trying to spin and change this into
soemthing different. You claimed that particle inhalation was just an
inconvenience. Your own reference, Aviation Safety World, clearly says otherwise. Page 29, bottom right hand corner,
they say that one of the primary causes of smoke inhalation injury in an
aircraft fire is soot and dust. Did you even read it?

>
> We found more than a half dozen sources, including scientific papers,
>
> none of which said that the smoke particles were the immediate danger in
>
> cabin fires - nor did we find anything that said a wet cloth filters them
>
> out.
>

More spinning. Now you're trying to shift to "immediate danger". Just
because it's not an immediate danger, doesn't mean it can't be part
of what leads to your death in the hospital 3 days later. It doesn't
make it safe to assume that inhaling particles is "just an inconvenience".

And why all this interest in a wet rag in an aircraft fire anyway?
The incidence of these is small, and the cases where a wet rag would
make a difference is miniscule.

>
> If we are to assume smoke particles are a life-threatening danger, we'd
>
> have to find at least one scientific article that said that the
>
> particulate matter itself could kill us in the time of a cabin fire.
>
>
>
> Even then, we'd have to know that a wet towel would filter out those
>
> particles.
>
>
>
> I looked for papers backing up our (apparently erroneous) assumptions.
>
> I can't find any.

That's because you can't read or comprehend what you find. And I don't
know who you're speaking about in terms of erroneous assumptions. It's
a strawman. You're the one who thinks because something isn't explicitly
stated, that "we can safely assume". And that's lead you to the incorrect
conclusion that smoke particle inhalation is just an "inconvenience".
Your own source says it's one of the primary sources of inhalation injury.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:23:47 -0700, Bob F wrote:

> Wood, cellulose, cotton, silk, wool, etc., were bad decades ago,
> but they were nowhere near as toxic as the chemically-manufactured
> materials of today.

This article lumps all the toxic gases and particulates plus
the irritant gases into a single word "smoke", but it also
lists at what temperature some of these synthetics melt at:
http://www.survival-expert.com/aircrash.html

Nylon melts at 265�C (510�F) and burns at 485�C (905�F).
Polyester melts at 254�C (490�F) and burns at 488�C (910�F).

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:54:50 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:
>
>
>
> > As others have said, they focused on the main cause of deaths in fires
>
> > and that is the gases. That doesn't mean that particles are not also
>
> > dangerous and life threatening.
>
>
>
> Nothing I found, so far, says that the particles are life
>
> threatening.
>
>

Just because they don't spell it out for you,
doesn't mean that it isn't. There is this,
from NFPA:

http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/reporters-guide-to-fire-and-nfpa/consequences-of-fire

The killing fumes
Most fire deaths are not caused by burns, but by smoke inhalation. Often smoke incapacitates so quickly that people are overcome and can't make it to an otherwise accessible exit. The synthetic materials commonplace in today's homes produce especially dangerous substances. As a fire grows inside a building, it will often consume most of the available oxygen, slowing the burning process. This "incomplete combustion" results in toxic gases.

Smoke is made of components that can each be lethal in its own way:


particles: Unburned, partially burned, and completely burned substances can be so small they penetrate the respiratory system's protective filters, and lodge in the lungs. Some are actively toxic; others are irritating to the eyes and digestive system.

vapors: Foglike droplets of liquid can poison if inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

toxic gases: The most common, carbon monoxide (CO), can be deadly, even in small quantities, as it replaced oxygen in the bloodstream. Hydrogen cyanide results from the burning of plastics, such as PVC pipe, and interferes with cellular respiration. Phosgene is formed when household products, such as vinyl materials, are burned. At low levels, phosgene can cause itchy eyes and a sore throat; at higher levels it can cause pulmonary edema and death.

>
> The HCN gas can kill you in a couple of minutes, for example.
>
>
>
> There was one reference which did say the wet cloth trapped particulate
>
> matter:
>
> http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621aaea998fcc220e6f.html
>
>
>
> So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles,
>
> but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation"
>
> (presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately
>
> dangerous, or the *reason* for the wet cloth.
>
>

You just continue to amaze. Now "smoke inhalation"
can be presumed to mean "particulate inhalation".

>
> Based on the evidence repoted to date, the reason for the wet rag
>
> seems to be to trap water soluble gases, of which HCN is the most
>
> dangerous in a cabin fire (according to all the references).

I think the real reason was to get you something to worry about
that's of little consequence in the everyday world.

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:46:22 -0700, Bob F wrote:
>
>
>
> > Inhaled particulate matter can without a doubt do significant damage.
>
>
>
> I would tend to wish to agree, since we've all heard about firefighters
>
> being treated for "smoke inhalation".
>
>
>
> However, if particulates were a thread to life, why wouldn't the FAA
>
> and the other cabin fire articles previously posted mention smoke
>
> particles as anything more than an irritant?
>
>

Do you not understand that an irritant in the lungs is serious?
More people die every year from asthma than do from airplane fires.
When you irritate something, particularly with particles from a fire,
which could be all kinds of bad stuff, it gets inflamed. If you
irritate your arm enough, what happens? It gets red, inflamed,
can start to weep fluid, etc. No imagine that happening not to your
arm, but your lungs that you depend on oxygen for. Lungs that also
have damage from heat, from the gases. Now you pile more irritation
from soot, particles. Can't you see how that can help kill you?

From NFPA, which should know a hell of a lot about fires:

[george152]

On 17/05/14 05:01, k...@attt.bizz wrote:

> Something to keep the father occupied and out of the way.
>

Bingo

[george152]

On 17/05/14 05:00, Frank wrote:

> If I'm in a burning about to crash plane, I think the last thing I would
> worry about would be the smoke ;)

As the airspeed would 'fan' the fires it would also take all the smoke
away for the few seconds you'd have to live

[John S]

Well, as soon as (or maybe before) the water in the towel
evaporates/boils/steams, it will become impossible to survive.

[John S]

If you are the driver and can't see through the smoke, would you worry
about the smoke then or relax and resign yourself to your fate?

[george152]

I believe you meant to type 'pilot' and I'd be doing everything within
my power to fly the aircraft and survive

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:30:48 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2014 18:22:53 -0700, Bob F wrote:
>
>> My guess would be that the wet cloth catches many of the smoke particles,
>> and the water will cool the air you inhale.
>
>Based on the one referenced FAA article, the dry cloth does nothing for
>safety, but a wet cloth reduces the water-soluble hydrogen cyanide gases.

In WWI, early in the gas warfare stage before there were gas masks,
soldiers wet cloth with urine, which apparently absorbed chlorine and
phosgene and stuff pretty well. It's better than dying, I suppose.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[trader_4]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:05:52 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just because some basic guides on what to do in a fire,
>
> > don't specifically say something one way or the other,
>
> > you can't "safely assume" anything.
>
> > Yet you keep doing it.
>
>
>
> You appear to have completely misread my actions, so I must
>
> not have been clear enough in the purpose of this thread.
>
>

No, I didn't misread anything. IDK what you're real purpose is,
only the question you asked, and then the wild assumptions, I saw
you make which you seem to think is sound science.

>
> I apologize.
>
>
>
> The question is one of survivability science.
>
>

And all this time I thought it was about string theory.

>
> It's about how a wet cloth helps someone *survive* during
>
> the time it takes to get out of an airplane during a cabin
>
> fire.
>
>
>
> I started with zero assumptions.
>
>
>
> The only assumptions "I" have made during this thread are
>
> those that are stated in the aforementioned flight safety
>
> references.
>
>

See, this is where you're going wrong. Assumptions are not
what is stated in references.


as·sump·tion
[uh-suhmp-shuhn] Show IPA

noun
1.
something taken for granted; a supposition: a correct assumption. Synonyms: presupposition; hypothesis, conjecture, guess, postulate, theory.

2.
the act of taking for granted or supposing. Synonyms: presumption; presupposition.

>
> Other people made a whole bunch of assumptions, some of
>
> which are supported in the references, but some are not
>
> supported in *any* of the references.
>
>

The assumption I'm talking about is the one you made:

"What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience, and not a safety issue."

You took what is essentially "what to do in an aircraft fire for
dummies", and made the bizarre leap that because they don't specifically
talk about the dangers of breathing smoke particles in a fire, that
means that avoiding breathing those particles is merely a convenience.
That does not compute.

Your own reference, Aviation Safety World, clearly says otherwise. Page 29, bottom right hand corner, they say that one of the primary causes of smoke inhalation injury in an aircraft fire is soot and dust.

So does the NFPA article on fires and smoke and the Fire Engineering
link I provided.

In ahort, just because the combustion gases and heat from the air
you breath from a fire typically are more serious than soot/particulate
matter, that doesn't mean that breathing particulate matter is just
an inconvenience. It's damaging and can contribute to killing you too.
The medical examiner only puts "smoke inhalation"
or similar on a death certificate. That doesn't mean that it was just
the heat or the gases that killed in all cases. Unless you think that
having some of that with your lungs also full of irritating particulates of
all kinds of possible toxic origin added in doesn't make your chances of
survival worse.

[trader_4]

That you don't know what you're talking about
when you conclude that because a brief FAA article doesn't
specifically say that breathing in soot/particulate matter is
harmful, that breathing it in is then just an inconvenience and
it can't contribute to killing you?

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 15:25:35 -0500, John S wrote:

> Well, as soon as (or maybe before) the water in the towel
> evaporates/boils/steams, it will become impossible to survive.

It seems, from the references, that 90 seconds is the golden
time period you need to get *out* of the burning aircraft.

So, all it has to do is stay wet for a few minutes to do
the intended job of helping to dissolve HCN gases.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 9:15 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
>>
>> For safety, all passengers should fly nude. Discounts
>> offered to cheerleaders squads who get frequent flier
>> miles.
>>
>
> Looking around right now, including looking in a mirror, I'd want a
> blindfold! I'm willing to make exceptions, but most of the time, a
> blindfold would keep you from getting an upset tummy.

That's when you put on the phony politician
half smile and say "Charmed, I'm sure" to
everyone. I'd not want to ask the man next
to me for some grey poupon.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:

> It is frequenty reported that someone dies of smoke inhalation. That's
> certainly something to care about.

Looking up what "smoke inhalation" means, I find it's a catch-all
phrase, sort of like "germ" or "headache" or "homicide" or "drugs".

In and of itself, it tells us little of the actual cause of death,
according to information in this Firefighter document all about SMOKE:
http://www.pbfeducation.org/files/THAB-SMOKE_Supplement.pdf

"Typically, when someone dies in a fire, it’s attributed to
the nebulous cause of “smoke inhalation.” In truth, it’s more
complicated than that."

"[the] potential cause of death in smoke inhalation victims -
[is] cyanide poisoning."

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:09:03 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

> I also heard that in the field urinate upon a 'dirty' wound to wash it,
> because urine is more sanitary than all that muck in there.

Voided urine is sterile unless you have a urinary tract infection,
but, given the excretionary purpose of the kidneys, I'd look up
the composition, just in case salt isn't a major component.

As for what "smoke inhalation" really means, it seems that this
short summary indicates the twin dangers of so-called "smoke inhalation",
only one of which a wet cloth will help ameliorate:
http://www.firesmoke.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/THB-Training-Outline.pdf

Toxic Twins of Smoke Inhalation
i. Cyanide
– Mechanism of Action - Cyanide Kills Organs
ii. Carbon Monoxide
– Mechanism of Action - CO Kills the Blood

[RobertMacy]

LOL! again! no pouring, soak the towels, line the inside of the thighs etc

[RobertMacy]

then again if it does anything like a damp paper towel does when I try to
use it as a 'hot pad' hat steam burn can be really nasty!

[Jasen Betts]

On 2014-05-16, Ann Marie Brest <annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:00:28 +0000, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty surprised about those findings, but they in this article
>> specifically about guarding your airway during an airplane cabin fire.
>
> This Airbus briefing discusses HOW to use the wet towels properly:
> http://airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-CAB_OPS-SEQ06.pdf
>
> "Use wet towels, a wet cloth, or a head rest cover to reduce some of
> the effects of smoke inhalation. Instruct passengers to hold the wet
> towel/cloth over their noses and mouth and breathe through it."
> .
> This onboard emergency description mentions not to use ALCOHOL:
> http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/1999/apr/apr_fire.pdf
>
> "To limit the effects of toxic fumes, a wet cloth should be
> placed over your nose and mouth (a headrest cover or any other
> available fabric is suitable). Use water, soft drink or other
> non-alcoholic beverages to moisten the fabric."
>
> Given that alcoholic drinks are almost all water anyway, I wonder
> why they bothered to mention non-alcoholic drinks?

you wouldn't want to wet it with vodka, or whiskey and have it catch fire.

> Does alcohol on the wet fabric do anything different with HCN?

A quick searh found no reactions ot HCN with dilute or concentrated
alchols. I think it's mainly the fire risk.


--
umop apisdn


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Jasen Betts]

On 2014-05-16, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
> fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.

as I understand it the HCN is produced when plastics containing
nitrogen burn in an oxygen poor environment. Stuff like synthetic
rubber upholstery, pulyurethane foam insulation and and melamine
tray-tables

[David Platt]

>> I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
>> fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.
>
>as I understand it the HCN is produced when plastics containing
>nitrogen burn in an oxygen poor environment. Stuff like synthetic
>rubber upholstery, pulyurethane foam insulation and and melamine
>tray-tables

As I understand it, this is akin to the major reason you're supposed
to get out of a computer room if the Halon extinguishers are
triggered. The Halon itself isn't particularly hazardous (at the
concentrations used in these systems), but the combustion byproducts
from burning plastics and etc. are really nasty. The Halon suppresses
some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
flammables.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>
>So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles,
>but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation"
>(presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately
>dangerous,

What do I care if it's not immediately dangerous if it's dangerous
later. I inhale smoke and I don't die in 5 minutes, but I'm sick 20
minutes later, or 2 days later, and I die 3 days later, or I'm sickly
for the rest of my life These are all bad.

I just learned a couple days ago that my brother's aunt died of
mesothelioma, a cancer associated with exposure to asbestos,

She wasn't a steam fitter. She worked in an office. At the age of 30
she moved 20 miles downwind from a steel company, and it didn't kill her
immediately, but it still killed her. Why do you think all that
matters is if something is *immediately* dangerous?

[Guv Bob]

"Ann Marie Brest" <annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote in message news:ll40gt$6hf$1...@solani.org...

> On Thu, 15 May 2014 20:16:19 -0400, Frank wrote:
>
> >> What's the wet cloth (scientifically) doing?
> > http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf
>
> That nicely summarized FAA article explains:
> - Smoke is a complex of particulate matter, invisible combustion gases & vapors suspended in the fire atmosphere.
> - Inhalation of toxic gases in smoke is the primary cause of fatalities
> - Carbon monoxide & hydrogen cyanide are the principal toxic combustion gases
> - Carbon monoxide combines with the hemoglobin in blood and interferes with the oxygen supply to tissues
> - Hydrogen cyanide inhibits oxygen utilization at the cellular level.
> - Carbon dioxide is a relatively innocuous fire gas, increases respiration rate causing an increase in the uptake of other combustion gases
> - Irritant gases, such as hydrogen chloride and acrolein, are generated from burning wire insulation
> - Generally, carbon dioxide levels increase while oxygen concentrations decrease during fires.
>
> And then finally, the article suggests:
> - Cloth held over the nose and mouth will provide protection from smoke particulates;
> - If the cloth is wet, it will also absorb most of the water-soluble gases (i.e., hydrogen cyanide & hydrogen chloride).
>

> What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
> of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
> is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
> merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.
>

> So, now we're left with the a WET cloth absorbing water-soluble gases.
> Of the two water-soluble gases, only hydrogen cyanide was listed in
> the article as being a safety issue (the other water-soluble gas was
> merely an irritant).
>
> So, I guess we finally have the answer to "why the wet cloth?".
>
> The WET CLOTH filters out (water soluble) hydrogen cyanide:
> "Hydrogen cyanide poisoning signs & symptoms are weakness, dizziness, headache,
> nausea, vomiting, coma, convulsions, & death. Death results from respiratory arrest.
> Hydrogen cyanide gas acts rapidly. Symptoms & death can both occur quickly.

Logically, breathing through a wet cloth would also remove more particulate matter than through a dry cloth. Try blowing cigarette smoke thru a dry handkerchief and a wet one and you'll see a big difference.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:50:13 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>> It is frequenty reported that someone dies of smoke inhalation.
>

>It's frequently reported that people die of heartbreak also.

Give me a break. Now you're using nonsense to try to refute facts.

If you google smoke inhalation, you likely may read that the US
ambassador to Libya who died in the fire at the consulate in Bengazi,
Ambassador Stevens, did not die from burns but from smoke inhalation.
Do you think he really died of a broken heart, or that they just called
it smoke inhalation to mess up this thead for you?

>And that Vikings wore horns on their helmets.
>And that Moses parted the water of the Red Sea.
>Or that George Washington had wooden teeth.
>Or that Benjamin Franklin publicly proposed the wild turkey be
>used (instead of the bald eagle) as the symbol of the US.
>Or that Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average
>Frenchman of his time.
>etc.
>
>Lots of things are "frequently reported" and just as frequently
>untrue. That's why I had asked for "scientific" answers.
>
>Anyone can guess wrong.

No one's guessing, lady, except you.

You've lost this argument. Give it up. No matter what you might yet
successfullly show about fire deaths, you lost when you said that we
(meanig you) could safely assume something just because the opposite was
not written in a short article. You have to abandon that method of
thinking, or at least not bring it up here, and then you might have your
future posts taken more seriously.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:03:58 -0700, RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:46:13 -0700, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:50:29 -0700, RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:24:46 -0700, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ..snip....
>>>> Why do they always boil water when a baby is coming?
>>>>
>>>> Do babies drink coffee?
>>>>
>>>> (on TV)
>>>>
>>>>> ...snip...
>>>
>>> LOL! just popped out for a spot of tea?
>>>
>>> However the heat from the hot water and towels dilates the cervix really
>>> fast, but does increase the risk of infection.
>>
>> Are you serious? (real question, no exasperation intended)
>>
>> They poured the hot water in her to dilate the cervix?????? What do
>> they do when they're not in a farm house in 1920? Same thing?
>>>
>>> Years ago, newspapers were used too, because they were steam press
>>> rolled
>>> and sterilized, but not today.
>>
>
>LOL! again! no pouring, soak the towels, line the inside of the thighs etc

And that will really dilate her cervix?

If so, that's a good thing to know.

[micky]

I've certainly thought about that.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:
>

>> Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires?
>
>Yes.
>
>We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about
>protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said
>that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern
>when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
>http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf
>
>As already noted, they said, verbatim:
> "the human body�s upper airway naturally provides significant
> protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme
> heat from hot, dry air."
>
>Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*
>about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot
>air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of

Your career is not in science, is it? Neither is mine, but I still know
we can't safely assume things like this from the absence of mentioning
cooling hot air. There are other good reasons but the simplest is
that the pdf files might be crap. There is plenty of crap on the web,
and even peer reviewed journals occasionally publish crap.

Here's an extreme case, but other circumstances yield similar resutls.
My roommate was a biology PhD candidate doing research in a foreign
county. A bunch of grad students all stayed at the same rural room &
board place and did there research in the jungle that surrounded them.
One of them would stop by where someone else was working and he'd chat.
Embedded in the conversation was "What experiement are you doing? What
kind of results are you getting?" And then he'd go back to his room and
write a journal article, send it to a journal, and because his writing
style was good, clear etc. it often got published.

Other times, he didn't go out of his room. He just sat back and asked
himself, What would a good experiement be? And what kind of results
might I get? And then he'd write an article based on those two
things.

He was published in every peer-reviewed journal in his field (and
non-peer-reviewed if there were such things then).

It was only after his artcles appeared that sometimes people would write
in, "I did that experiment and my results were nolthing like his." But
before many people were aware of his habits he had his PhD and no one
could take it away. Eventually he was drummed out of any faculty job
and end up working in a biology library at a university library.

Not all articles are as felonious as his, but some are crap or
semi-crap.. Others are good except they omit things, important things.

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.






>the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <4k9j4b-...@coop.radagast.org>,

The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
"air" part of the old fire triangle).
--
�Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.�
� Aaron Levenstein

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/16/2014 8:31 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
>
> It seems, from the references, that 90 seconds is the golden
> time period you need to get *out* of the burning aircraft.
>
> So, all it has to do is stay wet for a few minutes to do
> the intended job of helping to dissolve HCN gases.
>

And then discard the cloth, as it's full
of toxins.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/17/2014 5:39 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> As I understand it, this is akin to the major reason you're supposed
>> to get out of a computer room if the Halon extinguishers are
>> triggered. The Halon itself isn't particularly hazardous (at the
>> concentrations used in these systems), but the combustion byproducts
>> from burning plastics and etc. are really nasty. The Halon suppresses
>> some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
>> of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
>> flammables.
>
> The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
> displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
> "air" part of the old fire triangle).
>

I've taken some fire training courses. Halon is low
enough levels, that one can remain in the room. I've
seen movies of a test dump. The guy looked a bit
frieked out but was OK at the end of the movie.

There were some system using carbon dioxide, and
those displace oxygen.

Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
tetrahedron.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <0dHdv.44195$Qz3....@fx07.iad>,

Stormin Mormon <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I've taken some fire training courses. Halon is low
> enough levels, that one can remain in the room. I've
> seen movies of a test dump. The guy looked a bit
> frieked out but was OK at the end of the movie.

Price I pay for relying on 30+ year old memories.

>

> Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
> sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
> tetrahedron.

One of my mentors suggested a fire pentahedron.
fuel, heat, oxidation material, chemical reaction, and Chief
Officers. You take any one away and the fire goes out.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:44:27 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
>
> <annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:05:39 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires?
>
> >
>
> >Yes.
>
> >
>
> >We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about
>
> >protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said
>
> >that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern
>
> >when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
>
> >http://flightsafety.org/download_file_iframe.php?filepath=/asw/sept06/asw_sept06_p28-30.pdf
>
> >
>
> >As already noted, they said, verbatim:
>

> > "the human body�s upper airway naturally provides significant

>
> > protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme
>
> > heat from hot, dry air."
>
> >
>
> >Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*
>
> >about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot
>
> >air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of
>
>
>
> Your career is not in science, is it? Neither is mine, but I still know
>
> we can't safely assume things like this from the absence of mentioning
>
> cooling hot air. There are other good reasons but the simplest is
>
> that the pdf files might be crap. There is plenty of crap on the web,
>
> and even peer reviewed journals occasionally publish crap.
>
>

That's been my point. She keeps making assumptions that aren't
supported by anything, then implies that it's scientific. The basic
method she uses is because something isn't specifically mentioned,
then we can assume that it's harmless, not a factor at all, etc.

Regarding the PDF files, the FAA one in particular, isn't some
great scientific work. It's a brief handout to tell people they
should use a wet rag, if possibile. They aren't going to go through
every angle and factor in a brief guide. The purpose of the handout
is just to get you to use a wet rag, so they are going to hit the
main points. It also looks like it could have been written in the 50's.

She takes the fact that they don't specifically say that inhaling
soot/particles can cause injury and then uses that to "safely assume"
it's just an "inconvenience". I cited other articles from NFPA, Fire Engineering, that say otherwise.

>
> So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
>
> the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
>
> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>
>

+1

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:27 -0700, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>> ...snip excellent presentation....

> So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
> the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>

I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
for truth.

Some other real examples: some of the experimental research done during
the Communist era in Russia. Wasn't that experiment where the 'scientists'
took a baby duck out into a submarine, hit it [the duck, not the
submarine] with a hammer, and caused simultneous great distress to the
mother duck all faked? just to continue funding for their 'research'.
Sounded reasonable, too.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

> So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
> the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
my point to you in this post.

Some of those articles I quoted were FAA summaries, others were air-safety
brochures from the likes of Airbus & Boeing, while still others were
peer-reviewed scientific papers (all of which were referenced).

My point, that I must be not saying clearly, is that the alternate
view (which you, and others espouse) has absolutely zero references
backing it up.

Again, I hope I am being clear here. I'm not saying the points that you
and others espouse are wrong. I'm just saying that not one single paper
has been provided in support of that alternate view.

I think it's unfortunate that I said "we can safely assume" since
you keep thinking that I'm assuming something that you don't assume.

Again, trying to be very clear about what my point is, it's simply
that nobody yet has provided a single reference that backs up the
alternate view.

Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
seems to be your point - but it's not mine. My point is that the
alternative view is not supported by any facts which have been
presented in this thread.

Again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying that those facts
don't exist. I'm just saying NOBODY can find a paper which
supports those facts.

I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
seems to throw people into a defensive mode. Remove that and
replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
which back up the view espoused" or something like that which
simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
with anything concrete.

So, I only concluded what I could conclude from the papers
which I found, and referenced.

Is my point clear yet? (If not, I apologize.)

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

> I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
> knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
> brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
> That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
> for truth.

I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

It's the LACK OF PROOF that is dominant here.
Not proof taken out of context (which is what your example is portraying).

For the hydrogen-cyanide-wet-cloth theory, I provided oodles of PDFs
(from the FAA, from airplane manufacturers, from Fire Departments, and
from universities) which backed up my statements.

The alternate view has ZERO articles backing it up.

What am I *supposed* to conclude about the fact that the alternative
view has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

Given your example, it's like something that never happened that
was also never printed in the NEWS.

Since it never happened, and, likewise, since it never made it
into the news, what does that make it (besides an urban myth)?

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - so I repeat.

What am I *supposed* to conclude from the proposed alternative
view which has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 06:49:09 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> And then discard the cloth, as it's full of toxins.

Actually, in one of the references I read (I think it was the OSHA one),
it mentioned how to properly dispose of the hydrogen-cyanide-laced
protective gear after it was used.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 23:16:38 -0800, Guv Bob wrote:

> Logically, breathing through a wet cloth would also remove more particulate
> matter than through a dry cloth. Try blowing cigarette smoke thru a dry
> handkerchief and a wet one and you'll see a big difference.

I have no problem with the logic - but it may also be an urban myth.

What should we conclude from the fact that absolutely ZERO articles have been
posted to this thread coming from the FAA to the airplane manufacturers to the
airline-safety fire departments to the airline-safety research universities
which back up this hypothesis?

To repeat clearly, absolutely ZERO articles have been posted to this thread
that report that smoke particles are a life-threatening danger to your
breathing in an airplane cabin fire and that a wet towel can ameliorate
that danger.

The purpose of this thread is stated in the subject line:
How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

To be clear here, I'd be *glad* to believe that a wet cloth helps save your
life by filtering out particles, but it's hard to believe that supposition
when not a single one of us (me included) can find a single reliable industry
reference that says so.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 02:06:44 -0400, micky wrote:

> Why do you think all that
> matters is if something is *immediately* dangerous?

You're joking right?

We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.

And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your
aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?

I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 22:45:08 -0700, David Platt wrote:

> The Halon suppresses
> some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
> of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
> flammables.

This is very interesting. It makes sense.

Here's an airplane lithium battery fire article that partially backs up
your observation that the halon itself doesn't prevent the toxic fumes
from killing us.

http://www.highwaterinnovations.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PlaneGard-points-against-Halon-and-water-extinguishment-FINAL.pdf

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

> The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
> displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
> "air" part of the old fire triangle).

Hmmmmmm... isn't that the *opposite* of how Halon works in a fire?

I tried to find an airplane cabin fire article that backed you up.

For example, this was the first hit:
http://www.h3raviation.com/news_avoiding_mayday.htm

But, all that article said was that the carbon monoxide from the
aircraft cabin fire would displace the oxygen.

And, specifically, it said that halon does *not* "displace the oxygen"
which is how carbon dioxide extinguishers work.

Here's what the article said, verbatim (in part) about the benefits:
---------------------------------
Halon is an effective agent on Class B and C fires, the ones you're most
likely to see in an aircraft.

It works in gas form, so it will not obscure your vision like the powder
emitted from dry chemical extinguishers. Basically, it's invisible.

As a gas, it's capable of getting into hard-to-reach places like the
inner workings of your instrument panel.

It's a non-corrosive clean agent, which means it won't damage items
it comes into contact with.

It won't shock-cool your avionics.

It's lighter and more efficient than CO2.
Halons are low-toxicity, chemically stable compounds.

Sounds perfect, right? Well, there are a few drawbacks.

We said that Halon has low toxicity. But it's not benign or entirely non-toxic,
and you wouldn't want to introduce it to your respiratory system given the choice.
"But everyone, including the FAA, recognizes that it's better to put out the fire
effectively than to worry about breathing the Halon,"

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 06:53:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> There were some system using carbon dioxide, and
> those displace oxygen.
>

> Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
> sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
> tetrahedron.

Thank you Stormin' Mormon, for explaining that the proposed
supposition that halon displaced oxygen was not supported in the
literature.

I found a similar explanation to yours in this FAA book on
aircraft Fire Protection Systems:
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aircraft/amt_airframe_handbook/media/ama_Ch17.pdf

It's pretty troubling that some people believe stuff that has
absolutely zero references in the literature that backs up their
claims.

I'm glad you're not one of them!

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>> So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
>> the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
>> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>
>Again I must have not made myself clear.
>
>Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
>cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
>my point to you in this post.

So, why do they take away our water bottles?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

[trader_4]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:54:58 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>
>
> > So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
>
> > the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
>
> > can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>
>
>
> Again I must have not made myself clear.
>
>
>
> Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
>
> cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
>
> my point to you in this post.
>
>
>
> Some of those articles I quoted were FAA summaries, others were air-safety
>
> brochures from the likes of Airbus & Boeing, while still others were
>
> peer-reviewed scientific papers (all of which were referenced).
>
>
>
> My point, that I must be not saying clearly, is that the alternate
>
> view (which you, and others espouse) has absolutely zero references
>
> backing it up.
>
>
> view (which you, and others espouse) has absolutely zero references
>
> backing it up.

This is where the confusion starts. Micky was responding to your posts
where you made assumptions, based on something simply not being in
a short handout type guide. I responded too. I gave you the specific
example:

"What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers
of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth
is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience, and not a safety issue. "

That was the issue. Now you're off on something else. And whatever it
is, IDK because here you're talking about some "alternate view" in a
thread that's 50 posts, from many posters. I have no idea what alternate
view you're even talking about.

But if you think you're "safe assumption" is how basic logic works,
then I'm not sure we'll ever convince you.

>
> Again, I hope I am being clear here. I'm not saying the points that you
>
> and others espouse are wrong. I'm just saying that not one single paper
>
> has been provided in support of that alternate view.
>
>

The only view I've put forth is that your "safe assumption" logic in
the example I cited is totally bogus. Micky obviously agrees. I've
also provided references from Fire Engineering and NFPA that say
that smoke particle inhalation is a factor in death and injury. IDK what
more you want.

>
> I think it's unfortunate that I said "we can safely assume" since
>
> you keep thinking that I'm assuming something that you don't assume.
>
>

That's because you are assuming things that we aren't. I've given you the specific example. You're "safely assuming" that because some short guide
to get people to use a wet towel doesn't say anything about particles,
that therefore they are just an "inconvenience". Good grief.

>
> Again, trying to be very clear about what my point is, it's simply
>
> that nobody yet has provided a single reference that backs up the
>
> alternate view.
>
>

Again we have a failure to communicate. The thread is 50 posts, many
posters. How could we even know what "alternate view", you're talking about?

>
> Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
>
> seems to be your point - but it's not mine. My point is that the
>
> alternative view is not supported by any facts which have been
>
> presented in this thread.
>
>
>
> Again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying that those facts
>
> don't exist. I'm just saying NOBODY can find a paper which
>
> supports those facts.
>
>

What alternate view? What facts? Good grief.

>
> I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
>
> seems to throw people into a defensive mode.

It's not a defensive mode, it's that it simply totally defies
basic logic and how one reaches conclusions.

Remove that and
>
> replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
>
> which back up the view espoused" or something like that which
>
> simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
>
> with anything concrete.
>
>

Again, no idea what that means. You expect us to insert something
from here into something from 30 posts ago? Even if we tried to do
that, I'm 99% sure it wouldn't make any sense. If you have a new
position, then simply state the whole thing.

>
> So, I only concluded what I could conclude from the papers
>
> which I found, and referenced.
>
>

The basic problem is you make conclusions based on the *absence*
of something in a simple, basic guide about using a wet rag.
It doesn't say that particles can contribute to injury and death
and from that you make the totally illogical conclusion that
it means that particles are just an "inconvenience".

>
> Is my point clear yet? (If not, I apologize.)

It's more confusing than ever.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 12:06:58 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2014 23:16:38 -0800, Guv Bob wrote:
>
>
>
> > Logically, breathing through a wet cloth would also remove more particulate
>
> > matter than through a dry cloth. Try blowing cigarette smoke thru a dry
>
> > handkerchief and a wet one and you'll see a big difference.
>
>
>
> I have no problem with the logic - but it may also be an urban myth.
>
>
>
> What should we conclude from the fact that absolutely ZERO articles have been
>
> posted to this thread coming from the FAA to the airplane manufacturers to the
>
> airline-safety fire departments to the airline-safety research universities
>
> which back up this hypothesis?
>
>

Again, I provided you with links to Fire Engineering and NFPA yesterday
that say particles can cause injury and death. Look and read.

>
> To repeat clearly, absolutely ZERO articles have been posted to this thread
>
> that report that smoke particles are a life-threatening danger to your
>
> breathing in an airplane cabin fire and that a wet towel can ameliorate
>
> that danger.
>
>

To repeat, I posted the links yesterday.

>
> The purpose of this thread is stated in the subject line:
>
> How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?
>
>
>
> To be clear here, I'd be *glad* to believe that a wet cloth helps save your
>
> life by filtering out particles, but it's hard to believe that supposition
>
> when not a single one of us (me included) can find a single reliable industry
>
> reference that says so.

been there, done that, yesterday, from NFPA and Fire Engineering.
Find it and read it.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <ll8262$7f4$7...@solani.org>,

Ann Marie Brest <annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
> > The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
> > displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
> > "air" part of the old fire triangle).
>
> Hmmmmmm... isn't that the *opposite* of how Halon works in a fire?

Yep. As I mentioned I was trying to go with 30 year old memories.
That, and I never did inspections....

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:59:59 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
<annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:
>
>> I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
>> knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
>> brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
>> That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to
>> 'cull'
>> for truth.
>
> I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

I understood exactly what you are saying. That does not in anyway change
the basis for my comment, nor the 'value' of my comment [value to me,
anyway].

Given that it is not possible to conduct experiments yourself, what else
can be relied upon? except the results of others, possibly purported,
experiments. Good idea to go find as much 'literature' on the subject as
possible. Kudoes to you.

Though, I was surprised to find that you found a lack of
literature/evidence supporting hot gases searing the lungs causing mortal
injuries. Growing up, I had always been warned about that potential hazard
from house fire, and especially 'body' fire. Giving the warning of mortal
damage to your lungs to justify becoming prone. - as in, keep low to exit,
or roll to put out your body fire. But ALWAYS do not position your head
high up or above 'fire'. Instead you seemed to find evidence that the body
cools those hot gases so fast that it is not worth considering them as a
source of risk.

My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?
After aircraft fuel sprays everywhere and igniting doesn't strike me as a
potential win-win situation. Rather, keeping the strategy of 'move your
bloomin' arse' seems the appropriate attitude to maintain. And of course,
pause/check yourself out, be ready to roll on the ground at a distance,
because you may not even know/realize you're on fire.

From personal experience, 'pain' is one of the FIRST sensations to
disappear [also hearing], especially during duress. Thus, keep in mind to
be 'self aware and self-careful' You may be burning, or missing
extremities/limbs which you might try to rely upon to be functioning for
an emergency egress, so act accordingly. [I don't have the literature
reference to support this, but was always told] This sounds gross, but
don't pull injured people unless absolutely necessary, you might pull them
apart, instead try to coerce them into moving themselves. The human body
has a tendency to not hurt itself and moving under self volition is the
preferred manner of moving an injured person.

And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving themselves.

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:42:17 -0700, RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>>> ...snip....

> And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured
> person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving
> themselves.
>

that should have read, "....please, people, don't..."

not pointed towards the OP.

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
><annmar...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:
>>
>>> So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
>>> the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
>>> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>>
>>Again I must have not made myself clear.
>>
>>Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
>>cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
>>my point to you in this post.
>
>So, why do they take away our water bottles?

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires, they don't
take it away.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 12:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 02:06:44 -0400, micky wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do you think all that
>
> > matters is if something is *immediately* dangerous?
>
>
>
> You're joking right?
>
>

No he's not.

>
> We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.
>
>
>
> And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your
>
> aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?
>
>
>
> I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.

I don't think you are as naive or as confused as you want us to
think you are. For example, you just took what Micky said and
used it out of context. And there you go again, using "all our conclusions"
At this point, who even knows who and what exactly you're referring to.

Let's review.

You claimed that because nothing was stated about inhaling soot/
particles in a fire in that very short FAA handout, that not inhaling
smoke particles is just a convenience thing:

"we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.

I told you that it's a faulty conclusion, and even from a basic
logic standpoint, it's totally bogus. Because something isn't stated,
doesn't prove anything, especially when from all that we know, it
doesn't make sense. Again, I gave you references to NFPA and
Fire Engineering that specifically state otherwise. But here you are
pretending you haven't seen it. If that's true, it's because you won't
look.

So, Micky told you:

"What do I care if it's not immediately dangerous if it's dangerous
later. I inhale smoke and I don't die in 5 minutes, but I'm sick 20
minutes later, or 2 days later, and I die 3 days later, or I'm sickly
for the rest of my life These are all bad. "

So, you leave all that out, which directly applies to the situation
and instead respond to only the following part where he talks
about his aunt getting cancer from long term exposure. As Micky said,
you could die 3 days after a fire from smoke inhalation, which is due to the
combined effects of heat, gases and particle inhalation. I told you
the same thing yesterday. The particle inhalation is probably not as
serious as gases inhaled, but that doesn't make it just a convenience
factor to not inhale them. When you have damaged lungs from gases,
possibly heat, you think it's going to be just as likely for you to
survive as it is if you also have lungs full of toxic particles inhaled
from the fire? Not in my world. And not in the world of the two
references I provided either, that specifically address particle
inhalation injury.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,

RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
> of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
> the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
> for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
> instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?

The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.

--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."

-- Aaron Levenstein

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

> As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires,
> they don't take it away.

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include
a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and
mouth, in a plastic bag.

The use model would be that you go through airport security
with the wash cloth dry.

Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby
water fountain or bathroom wash sink.

What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit
that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really
make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 04:24:48 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

>> Does alcohol on the wet fabric do anything different with HCN?
>
> A quick searh found no reactions ot HCN with dilute or concentrated
> alchols. I think it's mainly the fire risk.

Thanks for checking up on whether the alcohol makes the HCN
gas less reactive.

I didn't realize that a vodka drink could catch fire.

That makes sense, if it can.

[trader_4]

On Saturday, May 17, 2014 5:02:10 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,
>
> RobertMacy <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind
>
> > of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be
>
> > the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation
>
> > for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of
>
> > instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that?
>
>
>
> The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have
>
> punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to
>
> admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.
>

That's my understanding of the issue too. IDK if any slides have actually been
punctured, but it's at least the possibility that it could happen. Robert
has a good point about what happens next though. I'd wondered about that too.
Depending what condition the plane is in, there could be debris, metal shards,
God knows what waiting when you hit the ground. I guess you can take you
shoes with you to put back on.-

[Stormin Mormon]

On 5/17/2014 12:19 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>
>> The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
>> displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
>> "air" part of the old fire triangle).
>
>

> And, specifically, it said that halon does *not* "displace the oxygen"
> which is how carbon dioxide extinguishers work.
>

At least that part of my memory works.

[Stormin Mormon]

As I remember from my fire protection courses,
that (not displacing oxygen) was one of the
advantages of halon. Of course, the government
found it to be ozone toxic and outlawed it.

Put that on the list of "if it works, outlaw
it" along with DDT and machine guns.