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

Page 4 of 8  
On 5/16/2014 8:31 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

And then discard the cloth, as it's full of toxins.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, micky wrote:

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."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:09:03 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL! again! no pouring, soak the towels, line the inside of the thighs etc
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 17:31:18 -0700, Ann Marie Brest

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!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:54:50 -0700, Ann Marie Brest

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?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:50:13 -0700, Ann Marie Brest

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?

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And that will really dilate her cervix?
If so, that's a good thing to know.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've certainly thought about that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

gases

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:34:21 -0700, Ann Marie Brest

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.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:44:27 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:

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 Engin eering, that say otherwise.

+1
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) 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).
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/17/2014 5:39 AM, Kurt Ullman 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.
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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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.
--
Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

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.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.