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

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

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.

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.

So, why do they take away our water bottles?



--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

On Sat, 17 May 2014 09:48:52 -0700, John Larkin
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

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.

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.

So, why do they take away our water bottles?

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires, they don't
take it away.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires,
they don't take it away.

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include
a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and
mouth, in a plastic bag.

The use model would be that you go through airport security
with the wash cloth dry.

Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby
water fountain or bathroom wash sink.

What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit
that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really
make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).

On 5/17/2014 5:35 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires,
they don't take it away.

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include
a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and
mouth, in a plastic bag.

The use model would be that you go through airport security
with the wash cloth dry.

Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby
water fountain or bathroom wash sink.

What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit
that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really
make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).

Might be best advice I've heard. Perhaps article of clothing,
which has plausible deniability. Pair of new socks?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On Sat, 17 May 2014 21:35:06 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:21:09 -0400, krw wrote:

As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires,
they don't take it away.

Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include
a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and
mouth, in a plastic bag.


Your chances of being in an airplane crash are minute, parts-per-million. Given
a crash, your chances of surviving are fundamentally low. Seems like something
not worth worrying about.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation

On Sat, 17 May 2014 15:54:58 +0000 (UTC), Ann Marie Brest
wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important,

Actually, the rest of what I wrote was more important, but when I wrote
this, I was particularly annoyed by someone trying say what I could
safely assume.

you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

I think you were clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles

OTOH, I don't know how many articles like this you found. ......

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.

.....but it doesn't matter, because it's not my point either. I think
everyone agrees that cyanide is bad for a person and no one challenges
the idea that a wet rag helps avoid it (helps a lot, apparently). So
let's just drop the subject of cynaide, about which no one disagrees.

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)

Apparenly I wasn't clear, or you weren't reading carefullly. I, at
least, am not not espousing any alternate point, but I'm taking issue
with the flimsy to non-existent basis for your conclusions.

I'm saying a few things, 1) You draw conclusions for no good reason,
and I'm pointing that out. When something isn't warned against
strongly, you say we can safely assume it's not a health hazard. We
shouldn't be assuming anything. There's no reason we have to reach any
conclusion at all on most of these things. Since we don't know if a
given fire is producing cyanide or not, it might be helpful to think a
wet rag protects against hydrocholoric acid, because that will be one
more reminder of the value of wet rags.

2) Right now I don't remember what 2 was.

3 About smoke inhalation only. You say things like this "but, nobody
has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation" (presumably that
means particulate inhalation) is either immediately dangerous, or the
*reason* for the wet cloth." As if only if something is *immediately*
dangerous does it matter. That merely being dangerous is of no
importance. That's nonsense.

And why are you presuming that smoke inhalation means particulate
inhalation? None of the things you have cited have said that
specifically, have they? Trader?

has absolutely zero references
backing it up.

Trader says otherwise. He quoted them, from articles you posted and
articles he found. I didnt' read the whole articles. I'm not very
interested in the topic. I am interested in why you draw conclusions for
no good reason, and why you think if something isn't harmful
immediately, it's not harmful enough to worry about.

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 don't care. My point was never to prove any alternate view. It was
to say that you jumped to conclusions to support your view. The
exception was smoke inhalation and no one but you needs a research paper
to know that smoke inhalation kills people. It's in the newspaper every
week, and for the entire USA, every day.

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.

It wasn't a matter of fortune. It was a mistake on your part. So stop
trying to speak in the name of others. If you said it when it was
true, you might get away with it, but you say it when even your should
not be assuming what you assume and when you certainly can't do it
safely.

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.

Again, trying to be clear about what my point is, I DON"T CARE about any
alternate view. I care, for some reason, that you draw conclusions for
the wrong reasons.

Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
seems to be your point

Find a place where I said anything supportive of any alternate view,
except that smoke inhalation can kill you. That 's so damn obvious to
everyone but you I had to mention it.

- 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.

You keep saying that. Trader says otherwise. You ignore him when he
says otherwise. When he gives quotes you don't try to refute the
meaning he attributes to those quotes. So you look like you can't be
relied on to examine things closely. I don't care enough to go read
his quotes in context, but you sure seem to. Yet you don't reply to his
citations.

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

Now you've exaggerated from nobody has found to nobody CAN find. You
shouldn't make statements like this. They make you look like a dummy
or a liar. (Have you worked in politics?) . I haven't spent any time
looking, and I haven't claimed to look, so you have no basis to say I
can't find something. Plus trader says he has found such things and
you ignore his statements to that effect.

supports those facts.

I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
seems to throw people into a defensive mode.

Claiming someone is in a defensive mode is a poplular method for trying
to put them in a defensive mode. We're just setting the record
straight and trying to keep you from making a false statement.

Remove that and
replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
which back up the view espoused"

That woudl be false. WRT what I've written, you have seen such
refrences. People are frequently reported to have died of smoke
inhalation. These reports come from pathologists and coroners all
over the country. Given the hot potato that some are trying to make
out of Ambassador Stevens's death, do you think the sources that say his
death was from smoke inhalation were not trying to be accurate? Does
anyone say his death was not from smoke inhalation?

Trader has more reasons why the statement above would be false.

or something like that which
simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
with anything concrete.

Again false.

But at least you're not trying to drag me into agreeing with you when
you don't use "we" or "us", and I will appreciate that if you continue
to do so.

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.)