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[_16_]]

On 5/15/2014 7:46 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> 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?
>
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/Smoke_Web.pdf

[Bob F]

Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> 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?

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?

[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
> 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)

>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?

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:26:21 +0000 (UTC), 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).

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 04:33:21 +0000 (UTC), 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.

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
> 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.

[RobertMacy]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:24:46 -0700, micky > 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.

[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.

[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.

[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
> 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.

[Frank[_16_]]

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 ;)

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:24:46 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 May 2014 16:46:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> 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.


>Do babies drink coffee?
>
> (on TV)
>
>>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?

[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 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
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 >
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:24:46 -0700, micky > 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.

[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!

[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).

[george152]

On 17/05/14 05:01, 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[_4_]]

On 5/16/2014 12:42 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> 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).
>

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

[John S[_4_]]

On 5/16/2014 12:00 PM, Frank wrote:
> 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 ;)

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]

On 17/05/14 08:28, John S wrote:
> On 5/16/2014 12:00 PM, Frank wrote:
>> 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 ;)
>
> 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?

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

[John Larkin[_2_]]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:30:48 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
> 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

[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.

[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

[Jasen Betts]

On 2014-05-16, Ann Marie Brest > 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: ---

[Jasen Betts]

On 2014-05-16, 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.

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

--
umop apisdn


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

[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
> 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?





>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).

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:50:13 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> 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 Sat, 17 May 2014 08:20:24 +1200, george152 > wrote:

>On 17/05/14 05:01, wrote:
>
>> Something to keep the father occupied and out of the way.
>>
>
>Bingo

I've certainly thought about that.

[Guv Bob[_2_]]

"Ann Marie Brest" > wrote in message ...
> 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 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> 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 >,
(David Platt) 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
>
> 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).
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

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.

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

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

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.

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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article >,
Stormin Mormon > 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.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:27 -0700, micky > 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
> 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

[Kurt Ullman]

In article >,
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).
>
> 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....
--
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.�
— Aaron Levenstein

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:59:59 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> 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 >
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.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), 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.
>
>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.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,
RobertMacy > 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.

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

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.


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

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

On 5/17/2014 12:22 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> 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!
>
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.

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

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

On 5/17/2014 5:02 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,
> RobertMacy > 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.
>

Given a choice, I'd be the last man out. And I'd be
throwing shoes out of the plane, for people to put
on. Yes, I'm that kind of guy. Next, I throw my own
shoes out. Of course, I'd have to beat the stewardess
into unconscious, they are trained like ambulance guys
to be a real pest when you aren't doing what they want.

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

[Stormin Mormon[_2_]]

On 5/17/2014 5:35 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
> 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).
>
Might be best advice I've heard. Perhaps article of clothing,
which has plausible deniability. Pair of new socks?

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

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 18:25:21 -0400, Stormin Mormon
> wrote:

>On 5/17/2014 5:02 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,
>> RobertMacy > 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.
>>
>
>Given a choice, I'd be the last man out. And I'd be
>throwing shoes out of the plane, for people to put
>on. Yes, I'm that kind of guy. Next, I throw my own
>shoes out. Of course, I'd have to beat the stewardess
>into unconscious, they are trained like ambulance guys
>to be a real pest when you aren't doing what they want.

Considering that you're further endangering their lives, I don't think
many would blame them from kicking your ass.

[micky]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:09:22 +0000 (UTC), 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?

You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with you?

Read trader for details.
>
>We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.
>
>And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your

All *YOUR* conclusions. Not ours. No one here has agreed with your
nonsense.

>aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?
>
>I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.

If you don't see the connection, you're blind, or intentionally blind,
or lying, or stupid.

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
> wrote:

>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.


Your chances of being in an airplane crash are minute, parts-per-million. Given
a crash, your chances of surviving are fundamentally low. Seems like something
not worth worrying about.


--

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

Precision electronic instrumentation

[RobertMacy]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:15 -0700, Stormin Mormon >
wrote:

>> ...snip....
> 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.
>

Yes, but *if* you already have the extinguisher, you're allowed to refill
it! So I bought three. One for kitchen, one for the car, and one for the
electronic lab.

[micky]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:09:24 -0700, John Larkin
> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
>Your chances of being in an airplane crash are minute, parts-per-million. Given
>a crash, your chances of surviving are fundamentally low.

A lot of people survive plane crashes, even the one where the big plane
was doing cartwheels. The number who don't survive but could have if
they had a survival kit is probably verrrrry low.

>Seems like something
>not worth worrying about.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:12 -0400, Robert Green wrote:

> I think it's been a generally useful thread where at least some people have
> learned about the nature of toxic gases produced in modern fires where
> there's a lot of plastic about. It's a good idea to know that now in a fire
> the concern is more than just soot and smoke, but inhaling poisonous fumes.
> I'm covered because I always have at least one cotton handkerchief with me.
> And my bladder.

I agree. And I thank everyone for helping us come to the supported conclusions.

You may notice that I've put the obnoxious kids posting here in my killfile,
so, that helps weed out the garbage (and save us all time & effort).

The chance of a cabin fire is extremely rare, but, the whole question was
answered well, which is why the recommendation for the wet cloth.

Who knows. Perhaps armed with this knowledge, your handkerchief and bladder
might help save your life!

It's always better to know, than to be ignorant.

[Ann Marie Brest]

On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:20:56 -0700, Chuck Duvernay wrote:

> The airlines need to install shoulder harnesses & passenger airbags.

Or relocate all the seats to the back of the plane! :)

On December 1, 1984, NASA & the FAA crashed a Boeing 720 into the Mojave
Desert for their joint report on their "Controlled Impact Demonstration".

Likewise, on April 27, 2012, a Singapore Airlines 727-200 was purposefully
crashed into the Mexican desert for a television documentary first aired
on October 7, 2012 (and numerous times thereafter).

In both tests, about 3/4 of the "dummy" passengers might have survived,
particularly those in the rear seats.

[Tom Miller]

"Ann Marie Brest" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 06:20:56 -0700, Chuck Duvernay wrote:
>
>> The airlines need to install shoulder harnesses & passenger airbags.
>
> Or relocate all the seats to the back of the plane! :)
>
> On December 1, 1984, NASA & the FAA crashed a Boeing 720 into the Mojave
> Desert for their joint report on their "Controlled Impact Demonstration".
>
> Likewise, on April 27, 2012, a Singapore Airlines 727-200 was purposefully
> crashed into the Mexican desert for a television documentary first aired
> on October 7, 2012 (and numerous times thereafter).
>
> In both tests, about 3/4 of the "dummy" passengers might have survived,
> particularly those in the rear seats.
>

What was most interesting was how fast the fire moved through the passenger
section. You literally have seconds to escape. It really is important to
remember where the exits are and have a plan on using them.

[Robert Green]

"Ann Marie Brest" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 May 2014 09:20:12 -0400, Robert Green wrote:

> Who knows. Perhaps armed with this knowledge, your handkerchief and
bladder
> might help save your life!

I'm going to try to remember to always have one of those little 8oz bottles
of water with me when I fly because I'd rather not have to depend on my
bladder to wet the handkerchief. (-: Eeeeewww

I knew, before this thread, that airplane cabin fires produce toxins but I
didn't know the fumes had large amounts of hydrogen cyanide gas. Some
people might remember that it's the primary component of Zyklon-B which was
used in the Nazi death chambers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyklon_B

Hydrogen cyanide was also used for jural homicide in the US for many years,
so it's kind of creepy to realize that our jetliners have the capacity to
turn into lethal flying gas chambers in the event of a serious fire. That
and the TSA "touching my junk" are two more good reasons to take the train
instead!

This thread has helped explain why I believe the missing Malaysia flight
might have suffered a cabin fire (that model plane had a known oxygen supply
hose defect that caused a very serious fire on the ground in another plane).
I have not been able to discover if that plane had the necessary repair work
done to eliminate that threat. In an oxygen-fueled fire, even things not
normally very flammable like Velcro burns. The citations here make it clear
that there's very little time to act in the event of a cabin fire.

If the cabin's filled with cyanide gas, death for everyone would occur in
very short order. The autopilot, since it doesn't breathe, would have flown
the plane until it ran out of fuel. We may never know the truth of what
happened to MH370 but this thread reinforces my belief that a cabin fire
could spread so quick and be so lethal that it could kill everyone on board
in a matter of minutes.

--
Bobby G.

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:00:46 +0000 (UTC), 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'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.

If I read an article that said that, I wouldn't have to *assume*
anything. Relying on a seemingly competently-written article is not
assuming.

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

.....

[micky]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 17:02:10 -0400, Kurt Ullman >
wrote:

>In article <op.xf0owsc22cx0wh@ajm>,
> RobertMacy > 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.

Okay. What about the rule against bringing your carry-on. I've assume
that is to save time, but I think I'd be willing to go last if I could
take my carry-on bag with me. I'd hug it so it wouldn't touch
anything.

[micky]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), 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,

Actually, the rest of what I wrote was more important, but when I wrote
this, I was particularly annoyed by someone trying say what I could
safely assume.

>>you should stop saying, WE
>> can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.
>
>Again I must have not made myself clear.

I think you were clear.

>Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles

OTOH, I don't know how many articles like this you found. ......

>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.

.....but it doesn't matter, because it's not my point either. I think
everyone agrees that cyanide is bad for a person and no one challenges
the idea that a wet rag helps avoid it (helps a lot, apparently). So
let's just drop the subject of cynaide, about which no one disagrees.
>
>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)

Apparenly I wasn't clear, or you weren't reading carefullly. I, at
least, am not not espousing any alternate point, but I'm taking issue
with the flimsy to non-existent basis for your conclusions.

I'm saying a few things, 1) You draw conclusions for no good reason,
and I'm pointing that out. When something isn't warned against
strongly, you say we can safely assume it's not a health hazard. We
shouldn't be assuming anything. There's no reason we have to reach any
conclusion at all on most of these things. Since we don't know if a
given fire is producing cyanide or not, it might be helpful to think a
wet rag protects against hydrocholoric acid, because that will be one
more reminder of the value of wet rags.

2) Right now I don't remember what 2 was.

3 About smoke inhalation only. You say things like this "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." As if only if something is *immediately*
dangerous does it matter. That merely being dangerous is of no
importance. That's nonsense.

And why are you presuming that smoke inhalation means particulate
inhalation? None of the things you have cited have said that
specifically, have they? Trader?

>has absolutely zero references
>backing it up.

Trader says otherwise. He quoted them, from articles you posted and
articles he found. I didnt' read the whole articles. I'm not very
interested in the topic. I am interested in why you draw conclusions for
no good reason, and why you think if something isn't harmful
immediately, it's not harmful enough to worry about.

>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 don't care. My point was never to prove any alternate view. It was
to say that you jumped to conclusions to support your view. The
exception was smoke inhalation and no one but you needs a research paper
to know that smoke inhalation kills people. It's in the newspaper every
week, and for the entire USA, every day.

>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.

It wasn't a matter of fortune. It was a mistake on your part. So stop
trying to speak in the name of others. If you said it when it was
true, you might get away with it, but you say it when even your should
not be assuming what you assume and when you certainly can't do it
safely.

>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, trying to be clear about what my point is, I DON"T CARE about any
alternate view. I care, for some reason, that you draw conclusions for
the wrong reasons.

>Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
>seems to be your point

Find a place where I said anything supportive of any alternate view,
except that smoke inhalation can kill you. That 's so damn obvious to
everyone but you I had to mention it.

> - 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.

You keep saying that. Trader says otherwise. You ignore him when he
says otherwise. When he gives quotes you don't try to refute the
meaning he attributes to those quotes. So you look like you can't be
relied on to examine things closely. I don't care enough to go read
his quotes in context, but you sure seem to. Yet you don't reply to his
citations.

>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

Now you've exaggerated from nobody has found to nobody CAN find. You
shouldn't make statements like this. They make you look like a dummy
or a liar. (Have you worked in politics?) . I haven't spent any time
looking, and I haven't claimed to look, so you have no basis to say I
can't find something. Plus trader says he has found such things and
you ignore his statements to that effect.

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

Claiming someone is in a defensive mode is a poplular method for trying
to put them in a defensive mode. We're just setting the record
straight and trying to keep you from making a false statement.

> Remove that and
>replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
>which back up the view espoused"

That woudl be false. WRT what I've written, you have seen such
refrences. People are frequently reported to have died of smoke
inhalation. These reports come from pathologists and coroners all
over the country. Given the hot potato that some are trying to make
out of Ambassador Stevens's death, do you think the sources that say his
death was from smoke inhalation were not trying to be accurate? Does
anyone say his death was not from smoke inhalation?

Trader has more reasons why the statement above would be false.

>or something like that which
>simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
>with anything concrete.

Again false.

But at least you're not trying to drag me into agreeing with you when
you don't use "we" or "us", and I will appreciate that if you continue
to do so.

>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.)

[micky]

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, 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.
>
>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.

News reports of people who died from smoke inhalation, incuding
Ambassador Stevens, certainly count as real evidence.

I reed and hear such reports frequently but I'm not going to take the
time to find any now. If you want to read some, search the web. There
are plenty.

>
>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).

Why do you worry only about the most dangerous gas? If 3 people mug
you, and one has a .45 caliber gun, another a rifle, and the third a
Derringer, with two small bullets, and you can stop the guy with the
rifle from shooting you, will you happily let the other two guys shoot
you?

[micky]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 20:02:50 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:09:22 +0000 (UTC), 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?

This line made me really angry.

>You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with you?
>
>Read trader for details.
>>
>>We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.
>>
>>And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your
>
>All *YOUR* conclusions. Not ours. No one here has agreed with your
>nonsense.
>
>>aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?
>>
>>I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.

And this 3-line sentence made me angrier. Snipping so readers could't
understand my point. And because you were making light of the death
of a woman I cared about.
>
>If you don't see the connection, you're blind, or intentionally blind,
>or lying, or stupid.

To try to make up for what Ms. Brest had snipped and to make my previous
post more clear: If you don't see the connection between my
brother's aunt's death because of where she lived but years after she
moved downwind from a steel plant and my ridiculing your insistence that
it only matters if something is *immediately* dangerous, you're blind,
or intentionally blind, or lying, or stupid.

She didn't want to die, and her family didn't want her to die from
mesothelioma, at all. Of course it didnt' happen immediately. It never
does with asbestos.

Maybe health insurance shouldn't pay expenses of someone who doesn't get
sick immediately? Maybe life insurance shouldn't pay when someone dies,
but not immediately. Heck, maybe we shouldn't even bury the people who
don't die immediately after the cause of their death. Because
immediate danger and death is all that matters, it seems, to you. None
of these is more stupid than your attitude.

Maybe when you're dying from some long term poison, you'll understand
it, but until you do, you're stupid.

[micky]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:38:02 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:00:46 +0000 (UTC), 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'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.
>
>If I read an article that said that, I wouldn't have to *assume*
>anything. Relying on a seemingly competently-written article is not
>assuming.

OTOH, if we are going to *assume* smoke particles are a life-threatening
danger, we don't need to read anything. We've already assumed it.
>
>>Even then, we'd have to know that a wet towel would filter out those
>>particles.
>
>....

[Kurt Ullman]

In article >,
micky > wrote:

>
> Okay. What about the rule against bringing your carry-on. I've assume
> that is to save time, but I think I'd be willing to go last if I could
> take my carry-on bag with me. I'd hug it so it wouldn't touch
> anything.
Yeah, getting the carry on out of the overhead never has been shown
to slow things down (grin). Even getting it out from under the seat
would most likely get in the way of your aisle-mates getting ou. And if
you were last (and even the only one) how exactly do you stay out of
everyone else's way? Finally, you can't be last because then you are
endangering the FAs who can't leave until you do.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

[micky]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:51:55 -0400, Kurt Ullman >
wrote:

>In article >,
> micky > wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay. What about the rule against bringing your carry-on. I've assume
>> that is to save time, but I think I'd be willing to go last if I could
>> take my carry-on bag with me. I'd hug it so it wouldn't touch
>> anything.
> Yeah, getting the carry on out of the overhead never has been shown
>to slow things down (grin). Even getting it out from under the seat
>would most likely get in the way of your aisle-mates getting ou. And if
>you were last (and even the only one) how exactly do you stay out of
>everyone else's way? Finally, you can't be last because then you are
>endangering the FAs who can't leave until you do.

Oh, well. Maybe I'll get a wearable computer, just in case.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:22:01 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:38:02 -0400, micky >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 May 2014 14:00:46 +0000 (UTC), 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'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.
>>
>>If I read an article that said that, I wouldn't have to *assume*
>>anything. Relying on a seemingly competently-written article is not
>>assuming.
>
>OTOH, if we are going to *assume* smoke particles are a life-threatening
>danger, we don't need to read anything. We've already assumed it.

Bingo! You made two good points here.


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

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 08:00:19 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 May 2014 20:02:50 -0400, micky >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 May 2014 16:09:22 +0000 (UTC), 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?
>
>This line made me really angry.
>
>>You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with you?
>>
>>Read trader for details.
>>>
>>>We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.
>>>
>>>And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your
>>
>>All *YOUR* conclusions. Not ours. No one here has agreed with your
>>nonsense.
>>
>>>aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?
>>>
>>>I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.
>
>And this 3-line sentence made me angrier. Snipping so readers could't
>understand my point. And because you were making light of the death
>of a woman I cared about.
>>
>>If you don't see the connection, you're blind, or intentionally blind,
>>or lying, or stupid.
>
>To try to make up for what Ms. Brest had snipped and to make my previous
>post more clear: If you don't see the connection between my
>brother's aunt's death because of where she lived but years after she
>moved downwind from a steel plant and my ridiculing your insistence that
>it only matters if something is *immediately* dangerous, you're blind,
>or intentionally blind, or lying, or stupid.
>
>She didn't want to die, and her family didn't want her to die from
>mesothelioma, at all. Of course it didnt' happen immediately. It never
>does with asbestos.
>
>Maybe health insurance shouldn't pay expenses of someone who doesn't get
>sick immediately? Maybe life insurance shouldn't pay when someone dies,
>but not immediately. Heck, maybe we shouldn't even bury the people who
>don't die immediately after the cause of their death. Because
>immediate danger and death is all that matters, it seems, to you. None
>of these is more stupid than your attitude.
>
>Maybe when you're dying from some long term poison, you'll understand
>it, but until you do, you're stupid.

Don't you think that's a little harsh. Even if she did spit on your
aunt, she can't help herself.

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 19 May 2014 07:55:41 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, 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.
>>
>>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.
>
>News reports of people who died from smoke inhalation, incuding
>Ambassador Stevens, certainly count as real evidence.
>
>I reed and hear such reports frequently but I'm not going to take the
>time to find any now. If you want to read some, search the web. There
>are plenty.
>
>>
>>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).
>
>Why do you worry only about the most dangerous gas? If 3 people mug
>you, and one has a .45 caliber gun, another a rifle, and the third a
>Derringer, with two small bullets, and you can stop the guy with the
>rifle from shooting you, will you happily let the other two guys shoot
>you?

That's a pretty good analogy.

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 17 May 2014 02:18:59 -0400, micky >
wrote:

>On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:50:13 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
> 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
>(meaning 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.

Maybe she can do that.

[Robert Green]

"trader_4" > wrote in message
news:df3d9f0d-cc7f-4640-a592-> On Monday, May 19, 2014 7:17:35 AM UTC-4,
Robert Green wrote:
> > This thread has helped explain why I believe the missing Malaysia flight
> > might have suffered a cabin fire (that model plane had a known oxygen
supply
> > hose defect that caused a very serious fire on the ground in another
plane).
>
> Again, that defect that occured in one other case, resulted in a
> cockpit fire at the pilots seat, while the airplane was on the ground.
> Let's say the same thing happened in MH370. How does that explain the
> airplane flying for about an hour more under radar contact, making
> precise turns, lining up with mormal flight paths toward India, and
> then later, making at least one more course change that took it to
> Australia? How does it miraculously result in the the transponder
> and ACARS being lost. And all this just happened to occur in the
> couple of minutes between being handed off by Malaysian ATC to Vietnam
> ATC, ie the ideal small, ideal window for deliberate human action?

There's no explanation of events that can be proven or disproved until the
wreckage is found. The pandemonium that can occur with a cabin fire can
explain a lot of things that appear to be inexplicable. Reading about how
fast cabin fires spread and how lethal they can be still makes me suspect a
cabin fire because a pilot crashing a plane deliberately and silently
doesn't make sense. He would *want* to get credit for his actions. Your
small, ideal window could be total coincidence. There's just no way to know
from the few facts that are available.

If it was a cabin fire, there should be still some evidence recoverable to
support that theory. If the FDR and voice recorder unit are found, it may
prove your theory - or it may leave us with more clues but no firm answer
because the voice recorder overwrites old data every two hours and the plane
allegedly crashed 7 hours after takeoff. Critical voice information is most
likely gone unless the CVR lost power early on in the flight.

The most difficult part of the suicide scenario is that even Shakespeare's
often long-winded dramatic characters got it over relatively quickly.
People who survived jumping off the Golden Gate bridge change their minds
half way down. Search for the 2003 New Yorker article about Golden Gate
Bridge suicide jumpers. It's very enlightening.

I just don't know of a single case where a guy took 7 hours to kill himself.
It's an impulsive act that people want to get over with quickly. He left no
note, no radio contact, no reasons given. That's pretty unusual for a
suicide, especially one who appears as troubled as he's been made out to be.
And his demonization by the press and the Malaysian government also bothers
me. It's classic scapegoating. There are dozens of scenarios at this stage,
but allow me to prefer those that don't point a finger at the crew or the
pilot.

Pilot suicide just doesn't make a lot of sense to me whereas a cabin fire in
a plane KNOWN to have a serious oxygen hose defect seems far more likely.
There's no record or mention I can find of the oxygen hose problem being
corrected and I doubt Malaysia has a fully-functioning FAA equivalent to
enforce maintenance fixes. I am also always totally suspicious of airlines
and governments being quick to blame the pilots. It's an industry tradition
used to focus attention away from any possible gross negligence on their
part.

> So then explain how the plane continued to make the many reported
> course and altitute changes. Including ones an hour and beyone the
> alleged fire.... It just doesn't fit.

"Reported course changes" really bothers me. If they had such detail course
information, why where they searching, without luck, huge swaths of ocean?
That model plane has not one but several automated systems that can fly the
plane and are dedicated to keeping it airborne. There's no main computer to
fail, like some "Star Trek" scenario. There are lots of independent systems
connected through data buses.

Considering how badly my PC acted up when the space heater accidentally
started blowing on it I have no problem believing a fire damaged autopilot
could do a lot of things that looked like a human was at the controls.
Since autopilots are capable of executing almost every command a pilot could
issue, changes in course don't prove there was a person issuing them.

> > If the cabin's filled with cyanide gas, death for everyone would occur
in
> > very short order.
>
> That's not true. There are portable oxygen tanks for the crew to use.

You're forgetting that it was precisely those tanks and their fittings that
caused the disastrous oxygen-fed fire on a different plane of the same
model. A fire that would not have been survivable had it occurred aloft. A
fire that turned the cabin's electrical gear into a mass of fused plastic
and wire.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/28/article-2591402-1CA3EBAE00000578-270_634x478.jpg

> Also the passengers have oxygen for long enough to bring the plane
> down to 10,000.

Can *they* fly the plane if the pilots burned to death in a flash cabin
fire? Maybe one of them was poking around with the charred autopilot after
the flames were extinguished and those actions caused the alleged course
changes. We may never know. One thing's for certain: without the wreckage
there's never likely to be conclusive proof about what happened to that
airplane, so we're just spinning our wheels.

Just like you can't testify to the operation of someone's mind in court, you
can't determine if the pilot was suicidal or homicidal by counting the
number of course changes a plane *allegedly* made after radio contact was
lost. If there was a fire, the pilots would have tried to deactivate
cockpit components by pulling the electrical busses. That *easily* explains
why cockpit based systems failed first and other, more remote systems
continued to function. If it was the pilot's emergency oxygen supply that
caused the fire, then their chances for prolonged survival amidst toxic
fumes are very poor.

Without the data and voice recorders or forensic evidence from the wreckage,
it's all supposition. I base mine on a previous very serious oxygen fed
cabin fire in an identical model and on Payne Stewart's flight to nowhere
with a plane full of dead passengers. Yes, that plane flew in a straight
line after all the passengers and pilot died from a pressurization
malfunction, but the 777 has a far more sophisticated autopilot.

If the Apollo oxygen-fed (aka a "blowtorch") fire killed everyone in the
capsule in 17 seconds, a fire like that doesn't leave much time to call the
ATC tower and tell them about an event they couldn't do anything about
anyway from 100's of miles away. The pilot's primary duty at that point is
to keep the plane flying, not to alert ATC. Pilots have a mantra for
setting priorities in an emergency: aviate, navigate, communicate.

The worst part is that they may never find the wreck. It took two YEARS to
find the AirFrance wreck and they basically knew where it went down. But if
they do find MH370, we may see which one of us is the better guesser,
because that's all we can do. Guess. There just isn't enough information
available to reach any valid conclusions other than the plane is lost.

--
Bobby G.

[RobertMacy]

On Tue, 20 May 2014 06:55:42 -0700, Robert Green
> wrote:

>> ...snip....
>
> The most difficult part of the suicide scenario is that even
> Shakespeare's
> often long-winded dramatic characters got it over relatively quickly.
> People who survived jumping off the Golden Gate bridge change their minds
> half way down. Search for the 2003 New Yorker article about Golden Gate
> Bridge suicide jumpers. It's very enlightening.
> ...snip...

Complicating are economic pressures:
Plane failed == extremely costly liability.
Pilot Error == no liability.

And from experience having a pilot friend accused of fuel exhaustion when
it was a casting flaw in the carburator suddenly appearing where he was
'guilty until proven innocent'; you'll see more Pilot Errors causing
crashes than mechanical failures.

[george152]

On 21/05/14 02:30, RobertMacy wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2014 06:55:42 -0700, Robert Green
> > wrote:
>
>>> ...snip....
>>
>> The most difficult part of the suicide scenario is that even
>> Shakespeare's
>> often long-winded dramatic characters got it over relatively quickly.
>> People who survived jumping off the Golden Gate bridge change their minds
>> half way down. Search for the 2003 New Yorker article about Golden Gate
>> Bridge suicide jumpers. It's very enlightening.
>> ...snip...
>
> Complicating are economic pressures:
> Plane failed == extremely costly liability.
> Pilot Error == no liability.
>
> And from experience having a pilot friend accused of fuel exhaustion
> when it was a casting flaw in the carburator suddenly appearing where he
> was 'guilty until proven innocent'; you'll see more Pilot Errors causing
> crashes than mechanical failures.

Yup. Its always easier to blame the pilot as in most cases they're dead.
And sometimes the Accident Report is so wrong that the Coroners Report
is taken as being the truer record