On Saturday, May 17, 2014 11:54:58 AM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
This is where the confusion starts. Micky was responding to your posts
where you made assumptions, based on something simply not being in
a short handout type guide. I responded too. I gave you the specific
"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. "
That was the issue. Now you're off on something else. And whatever it
is, IDK because here you're talking about some "alternate view" in a
thread that's 50 posts, from many posters. I have no idea what alternate
view you're even talking about.
But if you think you're "safe assumption" is how basic logic works,
then I'm not sure we'll ever convince you.
The only view I've put forth is that your "safe assumption" logic in
the example I cited is totally bogus. Micky obviously agrees. I've
also provided references from Fire Engineering and NFPA that say
that smoke particle inhalation is a factor in death and injury. IDK what
more you want.
That's because you are assuming things that we aren't. I've given you the specific example. You're "safely assuming" that because some short guide
to get people to use a wet towel doesn't say anything about particles,
that therefore they are just an "inconvenience". Good grief.
Again we have a failure to communicate. The thread is 50 posts, many
posters. How could we even know what "alternate view", you're talking about?
What alternate view? What facts? Good grief.
It's not a defensive mode, it's that it simply totally defies
basic logic and how one reaches conclusions.
Remove that and
Again, no idea what that means. You expect us to insert something
from here into something from 30 posts ago? Even if we tried to do
that, I'm 99% sure it wouldn't make any sense. If you have a new
position, then simply state the whole thing.
The basic problem is you make conclusions based on the *absence*
of something in a simple, basic guide about using a wet rag.
It doesn't say that particles can contribute to injury and death
and from that you make the totally illogical conclusion that
it means that particles are just an "inconvenience".
On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:
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?
On Fri, 16 May 2014 23:16:38 -0800, Guv Bob wrote:
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
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.
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.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 12:09:22 PM UTC-4, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
No he's not.
I don't think you are as naive or as confused as you want us to
think you are. For example, you just took what Micky said and
used it out of context. And there you go again, using "all our conclusions"
At this point, who even knows who and what exactly you're referring to.
You claimed that because nothing was stated about inhaling soot/
particles in a fire in that very short FAA handout, that not inhaling
smoke particles is just a convenience thing:
"we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.
I told you that it's a faulty conclusion, and even from a basic
logic standpoint, it's totally bogus. Because something isn't stated,
doesn't prove anything, especially when from all that we know, it
doesn't make sense. Again, I gave you references to NFPA and
Fire Engineering that specifically state otherwise. But here you are
pretending you haven't seen it. If that's true, it's because you won't
So, Micky told you:
"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. "
So, you leave all that out, which directly applies to the situation
and instead respond to only the following part where he talks
about his aunt getting cancer from long term exposure. As Micky said,
you could die 3 days after a fire from smoke inhalation, which is due to the
combined effects of heat, gases and particle inhalation. I told you
the same thing yesterday. The particle inhalation is probably not as
serious as gases inhaled, but that doesn't make it just a convenience
factor to not inhale them. When you have damaged lungs from gases,
possibly heat, you think it's going to be just as likely for you to
survive as it is if you also have lungs full of toxic particles inhaled
from the fire? Not in my world. And not in the world of the two
references I provided either, that specifically address particle
On Fri, 16 May 2014 22:45:08 -0700, David Platt wrote:
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.
On Sat, 17 May 2014 05:39:45 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:
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:
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,"
On Sat, 17 May 2014 06:53:49 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Thank you Stormin' Mormon, for explaining that the proposed
supposition that halon displaced oxygen was not supported in the
I found a similar explanation to yours in this FAA book on
aircraft Fire Protection Systems:
It's pretty troubling that some people believe stuff that has
absolutely zero references in the literature that backs up their
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.
On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:59:59 -0700, Ann Marie Brest
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,
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.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 5:02:10 PM UTC-4, Kurt Ullman wrote:
That's my understanding of the issue too. IDK if any slides have actually been
punctured, but it's at least the possibility that it could happen. Robert
has a good point about what happens next though. I'd wondered about that too.
Depending what condition the plane is in, there could be debris, metal shards,
God knows what waiting when you hit the ground. I guess you can take you
shoes with you to put back on.-
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.