On Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:44:27 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest

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_fil...t06_p28-30.pdf



As already noted, they said, verbatim:

"the human body�s upper airway naturally provides significant

protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme

heat from hot, dry air."



Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything*

about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot

air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of



Your career is not in science, is it? Neither is mine, but I still know

we can't safely assume things like this from the absence of mentioning

cooling hot air. There are other good reasons but the simplest is

that the pdf files might be crap. There is plenty of crap on the web,

and even peer reviewed journals occasionally publish crap.



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

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

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




So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from

the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE

can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.



+1