Robespierre

Several months ago, we talked about these devices in terms of accidents - hotel fire and aircraft crash and that sort of thing.

http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=34528349

Now that there have been two instances of deliberate attacks against civilians in London, I would be interested to hear from anyone whose view has changed in the interval.

If you <i>still</i> don't own one because of the vanishingly small likelihood it will be needed, let me ask you this: statistically speaking, how many Underground or (shudder) Chunnel bombings per month would you say justifies carrying one?

armand

THE SKY IS FALLING&gt; THE SKY IS FALLING

Jolie

I think I posted this in the last thread: Given a choice, I would rather have a smoke hood on an airplane than the life vest that's under my seat.

And the spend a lot of time explaining how to use the life vest in case of an emergency, but no time on how to use the oxygen supply the planes have for the crew. The logic of giving the crew oxygen is that they would most likely stay to help other passengers get off the plane - but don't people sitting in the exit row do the same, if needed? Yet, no oxygen for them.

I still wouldn't carry one around with me, though. I guess I live dangerously (don't even use sunscreen).

sunny16

Ok, I'd never heard of smoke hoods until I read this post. They seem like a good idea for planes. But I ride the subway every day and I don't think I'd carry one. Statistics are still on my side, so far.

A_Traveller

As I understad it, the canisters that give you the ability to breath while wearing the &quot;smoke hood&quot; do not have an exceptionally long shelf life and if they are not replaced at set intervals the hood is virtually useless. Imagine people carrying a hood for several years thinking they would be safe in the event of an emergency only to find out, at the most inopportune time, the hood didn't work because the canister was out-dated.

Statistically, your chances of ever needing one are pretty slim, of course, if you happen to be in that slim minority that one day might need a smoke hood, well then, it would be nice to have one. It's somewhat like an umbrella - do you carry one with you everyday on the off chance it might rain?

Robespierre

The fact that the hood has a shelf life shouldn't be a deterrent to carrying one. I would plan to keep mine up to date, but in any event, wouldn't a hood with reduced chemical-absorbing/neutralizing ability still be better than none at all?

The umbrella analogy is wanting. If it rains, your clothes get wet. You don't die (unless you're m_kingdom2).

m_kingdom2

One can buy pocket gas masks, but obviously these have limited use in large fires as the heat does far more damage than inhaling the smoke. One mustn't worry about such things, one must live life and enjoy it. A life lived in fear is a life that isn't lived.

Oh, and a year or so ago I was caught in the rain with no umbrella, and wearing a Dior jacket, it got wet, had dried in half an hour and was crease free and looked as if it had just been pressed. Quite incredible.

tedgale

Oh, you just made that up!

Robespierre

<i>It is a fact that most people who die in hotel, ship, and airplane fires succumb to toxic combustion products. Not fire itself. No small number become disoriented and die because the same gases prevent them from being able to see the exits. A smoke hood addresses both of those issues.</i>

I think this is one of those highly subjective glass half empty/full areas.

I'm fly little aerobatic airplanes, which some would consider a high-risk activity. The threat of terrorism has never stopped me from doing anything I wanted to. So I don't think that carrying a smoke hood has much to do with fear - at least in my case.

I see it as an insurance policy, like checking an airplane before I take it up. Having flown since 1973, I have never found anything dangerous during one of these walkaround checks - but I still do them. I also always file a flight plan when I'm going cross-country (even though it's not required) and carry a survival kit and radio. When I fly into the mountains, I take warm clothing with me even if it's 105&deg; at my departure airport.

It's not about fear. It's simple prudence. If I ever get into a situation where a smoke hood makes the difference between life and death, I will make my escape over the bodies of those who thought having one would mark them as fearful.

m_kingdom2

Neither are invented. Certain firms have sprung up post September 11th attacks, and sell personal emergency aids. Personally, I feel they're pretty ineffective in a biological/chemical situation as the delay between putting it on and exposure time would render it useless. Also, the mask will not contain contaminated air as it has been put on in a polluted environment. So anything like that is really ineffective.

And yes, the Dior thing is true...

Robespierre

It <i>will</i> contain contaminated air.

And I don't envision waiting to don a chemical mask until the people around me are dying - I'd do it when I heard on the radio that my city was under attack.

lilminkey

Interesting, but its mho when your nummber comes up you will be going with or without a mask attached. There are so many other things that can happen in any of these situations, but imagine if you survive the initial blast ,the crowds the possible flipping over etc. etc.but you have no mask,for some reason you didn't take it; now that would really be a bummer!All aboard....

Robespierre

Excuse my directness, but that's just plain muddy thinking.

It can be shown statistically that your odds of surviving an automobile collision improve dramatically if you are wearing 3-point lap and shoulder belts.

What you are saying, in essence, is that it doesn't matter whether you use seat belts or not, because it is your &quot;number,&quot; not the safety equipment you are wearing, that determines whether or not your time is up.

Rot.

Smoke hoods have allowed people to escape when those without them have perished. End of story.

caroline_edinburgh

I seem to be missing something here : how would a smoke hood help if you were blown up by a bomb ?

Robespierre

Don't be daft. No one said that it would.

Please notice that the vast majority of the casualties requiring hospitalization were treated for smoke inhalation.

We can't know how many died from inspiring toxic fumes, but I would venture that the number was greater than zero.

caroline_edinburgh

&quot;the vast majority of the casualties requiring hospitalization were treated for smoke inhalation&quot;

Strange, that's not what I heard from the UK newspapers, BBC news or Channel 4 news.

Robespierre

Well, here's how Channel 4 reported it on their web site:

<b>http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=13569</b>

&quot;Some 700 people - including walking wounded - were injured, with 45 seriously hurt. The range of injuries included burns, amputations, chest and blast injuries, fractured limbs and smoke inhalation. A number of casualties have lost limbs. Around 300 were taken to hospital, some covered in blood.&quot;

According to

<b>http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/1/hi/uk/4659331.stm</b>

&quot;London ambulance service reports that 45 people were seriously injured in the blasts, sustaining injuries such as severe burns, amputations, chest and blast injuries. <b>A further 300 sustained minor injuries, such as lacerations and smoke inhalation</b>.&quot;

Okay, follow me through here: if 300 people &quot;sustained minor injuries such as lacerations and smoke inhalation&quot;, does it make sense that more passengers would have been hospitalized for lacerations (from being close to the blasts), or more of them from smoke inhalation (from the air in the tunnel)?

I think the answer is obvious: the smoke affected a much larger area of the environment than the shrapnel. Therefore: the vast majority of casualties suffered smoke inhalation.

<i>Q.E.D.</i>

It can also be inferred that anyone lacerated by flying debris would also be subjected to the smoke, and as long as their injuries were not debilitating (the 300 were in <i>addition</i> to those seriously injured), they also would have been able don smoke masks.

In fact, everyone who didn't get out of the tunnel immediately probably encountered smoke.

If you have any documentation to refute the above inferences, I would be interested to see them.