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

On Fri, 16 May 2014 04:33:21 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 05:19:33 +0200, nestork wrote:

I agree with BobF; the wet cloth acts like a filter for both smoke
particles and fumes that would be soluble in water.

Until I read the referenced articles, I would also have believed that
filtering the smoke itself might have been a key safety issue.

But, we don't have any proof yet that smoke particles are anything
we care about from an inhalation standpoint during a cabin fire.

I think we're allowed to take judicial notice of everything else we've
learned in our lives.

It is frequenty reported that someone dies of smoke inhalation. That's
certainly something to care about. It may take longer than dying from
cynanide, but it's still bad.

I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.

In fact, this detailed article about all the negative effects of
a fire mainly discuss "smoke density" as a visual impairment factor,
and not as a critical inhalent (see page 39 of 47):

"Compilation of Data on the Sublethal Effects of Fire Effluent"
http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire09/PDF/f09033.pdf

What we seem to care about is hydrogen cyanide, which is soluble
in water. So the web towel apparently absorbs the HCN before you do.

On page 19 of 47, there is a table of the results of experiments
of HCN gases on a variety of mammals, since they say only one
human study was ever done. However, it's hard for me to
extrapolate that table to what happens in a real cabin fire.

So, what we really need is the key datapoint:
a. What is the concentration of HCN in a typical aircraft fire?

Who says there is a typical aircraft fire wrt HCN?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 07:48:32 -0400, 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.

I agree that we don't have actual ppm levels documented yet, but,
we do know that the hydrogen cyanide gas is deadly within minutes.

One of the papers said death ensues within minutes.

Another one discussed how a hundred people died, none of whom
had traumatic injury, all of whom died from the toxicity of
the gases in the fire.

What we don't know is the ppm concentration REDUCTION that
a wet towel provides us.

micky wrote:
So, what we really need is the key datapoint:
a. What is the concentration of HCN in a typical aircraft fire?

Who says there is a typical aircraft fire wrt HCN?

Maybe we should use natural materials in airplane interiors.

Understanding CO and HCN is especially crucial to today's fire service, because
the smoke that firefighters were exposed to 20 or 30 years ago is not the same
as it is today. Wood, cellulose, cotton, silk, wool, etc., were bad decades ago,
but they were nowhere near as toxic as the chemically-manufactured materials of
today. When combined in a fire situation, these chemicals are often referred to
as "the breath from hell"2 and include compounds such as:
a.. Acetyls-aerosol containers, combs, lighters and pens
b.. Acrylics-glues, food packages and skylights
c.. Nylons-various household containers, brushes, sewing thread and fishing
line
d.. Polyesters-hair dryers, computers and kitchen appliances
e.. Polypropylene-bottles, diapers and furniture
f.. Polyurethanes-shoes and cushions
g.. Polyvinyl chlorides (PVC)-carpet, clothes, purses, records and shower
curtains
h.. Thermo sets-TVs, coatings, toilets, buttons, flooring and insulation
http://www.firefighternation.com/art...more-dangerous

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 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 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 Sat, 17 May 2014 02:18:59 -0400, micky
wrote:

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
(meaning 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.

Maybe she can do that.

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, 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 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.