On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:34:21 PM UTC-4, 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

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

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

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

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.

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/8abb4621...fcc220e6f.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).

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?

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!

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:00:46 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700, trader_4 wrote:



Just because someone writing a brief article doesn't specifically

mention something, doesn't constitute science.



Science isn't what you are I guess.

Science is what can be tested & proven.



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




I'd be glad if you can find a tested/proven article on airplane fires

which says that smoke particles, in and of themselves, constitute a

life-threatening danger in the time it takes to exit a burning airplane.


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




We found more than a half dozen sources, including scientific papers,

none of which said that the smoke particles were the immediate danger in

cabin fires - nor did we find anything that said a wet cloth filters them

out.


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

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



If we are to assume smoke particles are a life-threatening danger, we'd

have to find at least one scientific article that said that the

particulate matter itself could kill us in the time of a cabin fire.



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

particles.



I looked for papers backing up our (apparently erroneous) assumptions.

I can't find any.

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

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).

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:54:50 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



As others have said, they focused on the main cause of deaths in fires

and that is the gases. That doesn't mean that particles are not also

dangerous and life threatening.



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

threatening.



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

http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/repor...uences-of-fire

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

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


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

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

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





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



There was one reference which did say the wet cloth trapped particulate

matter:

http://wenku.baidu.com/view/8abb4621...fcc220e6f.html



So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles,

but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation"

(presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately

dangerous, or the *reason* for the wet cloth.



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





Based on the evidence repoted to date, the reason for the wet rag

seems to be to trap water soluble gases, of which HCN is the most

dangerous in a cabin fire (according to all the references).

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

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:59:29 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2014 21:46:22 -0700, Bob F wrote:



Inhaled particulate matter can without a doubt do significant damage.



I would tend to wish to agree, since we've all heard about firefighters

being treated for "smoke inhalation".



However, if particulates were a thread to life, why wouldn't the FAA

and the other cabin fire articles previously posted mention smoke

particles as anything more than an irritant?



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

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

http://www.nfpa.org/press-room/repor...uences-of-fire


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

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


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

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

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

On 17/05/14 05:01, wrote:

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


Bingo

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

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/8abb4621...fcc220e6f.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.

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/pil.../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?

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/pil.../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

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

On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:05:52 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:48:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:



Just because some basic guides on what to do in a fire,

don't specifically say something one way or the other,

you can't "safely assume" anything.

Yet you keep doing it.



You appear to have completely misread my actions, so I must

not have been clear enough in the purpose of this thread.



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




I apologize.



The question is one of survivability science.



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



It's about how a wet cloth helps someone *survive* during

the time it takes to get out of an airplane during a cabin

fire.



I started with zero assumptions.



The only assumptions "I" have made during this thread are

those that are stated in the aforementioned flight safety

references.



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


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

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

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



Other people made a whole bunch of assumptions, some of

which are supported in the references, but some are not

supported in *any* of the references.



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

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:56:07 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
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?

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

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.

On 5/16/2014 10:26 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 5/16/2014 9:15 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:


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


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

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

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

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/TH...Supplement.pdf

"Typically, when someone dies in a fire, its attributed to
the nebulous cause of €œsmoke inhalation.€� In truth, its more
complicated than that."

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

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/...ng-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

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:46:13 -0700, micky wrote:

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.


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

On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:31:18 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

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.



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

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_ga..._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/_asset...r/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: ---

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: ---

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.

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).

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.

On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:03:58 -0700, RobertMacy
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:46:13 -0700, micky wrote:

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.


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

And that will really dilate her cervix?

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

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.

"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/pil.../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.

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.

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.

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

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
..

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
..

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

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

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.

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.)

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?