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:
"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."
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:
Toxic Twins of Smoke Inhalation
– Mechanism of Action - Cyanide Kills Organs
ii. Carbon Monoxide
– Mechanism of Action - CO Kills the Blood
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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'
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.
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
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.)
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.