On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:34:02 -0400, micky wrote:

we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is
merely a convenience,

How can we safely assume that? I'd assume the opposite.

I also would have assumed the opposite, had I not read the
articles, which prove our assumptions invalid.

The other articles on cabin fires went into nice detail
as to how hydrogen cyanide acts as a cellular asphyxiant by
binding to mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase.

They explicitly stated that smoke particles are not
deadly in an airplane crash.

So, what you, or I, would have assumed about smoke itself
being deadly, is apparently wrong.

If you still think your (and my) initial assumption is right,
then what we need is an article about cabin fires which says
both that the smoke particles are deadly, and, that a wet
cloth reduces them.

Otherwise, we're just making non-scientific assumptions.