Science of Arson Wrong!

[qayak]

Things that make you go "Hmmmmmmm......"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061209/ap_on_sc/arson_on_trial

[daenku32]

You mean, "was wrong"? Or that there was none in the first place. What's GOOD is that they did correct the books and that they now contain some actual science.

[fuelair]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1933722

What's wrong is they have had data for several years that shows most of the fire experts were incompetant fools who just accepted whatever stupidity was passed on as fire science instead of experimenting to be sure - and a good number of people have been jailed and some executed based on bad science.

Interesting and sad to read many of the entries you can locate under search for Bad science fire, b-s-arson, etc.

[Dog Boots]

Now, how many of us can honestly say that, at one time or another, he or she has never set fire to some great public building? I know I have!



.....(Monty Python-quote, before anyone gets their pants in a knot)

[Myriad]

From the article:

A major revelation came from greater understanding of a phenomenon known as "flashover." When a fire burns inside a structure, it sends heat and gases to the ceiling until it reaches a certain temperature — and then in a critical transition, everything combustible in that space will catch fire. Instead of a fire in a room, now there is a room on fire.

When that happens, it can leave any number of signs that investigators earlier thought meant arson — like the burn holes on the floor that used to prove multiple starting points. And it can cause a fire to burn down from the ceiling — not up as investigators had been taught.

Significantly, flashover can create very hot and very fast-moving fires. And it can occur within just a few minutes, dashing the concept that only arson fires fueled by accelerants can quickly rage out of control.

WTF??? Flashover was well-understood by the mid-70s. I was working in a fire research center then, and flashover was under intensive study. We might have had to scribe our data on wet clay tablets while fending off wildebeests with sharpened sticks, but we had thermocouples, airflow meters, video cameras, and the willingness (or rather, the eagerness) to build full-scale rooms and set them on fire.

Why, I wonder, the 20-year delay in the information getting out?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Slimething]

I read the linked article and was astounded that the government even suggested that the fire had been set with 60 gallons of fuel oil. I don't think that anyone should have let that get by without proof of detectable oil residues in the structural remains.

Perhaps the issue is a much broader one. Perhaps this is banal but our public institutions are only as good as the public that comprises it. This instance is not nearly the first or only occurence of a great wrong caused by a lack of critical reasoning and due diligence. Thank FSM that science-based methods finally caught up with the investigatgors. Now, we need the court system to disallow a charge of arson without evidence that an accelerant was identified in the structural remains. Juries composed of average citizens may often lack one person who keeps asking for the missing evidence that should exist given the claims of either the defendant or the plaintiff/prosecutor.

We all do owe it to our society to detect and blow the whistle on critical but untested policies.

[davefoc]

This seems to be another example of prosecutor's refusing to admit mistakes.

This has surprised me quite a bit and perhaps it isn't as common as it might seem because those are the stories that get publicized. Still, it just freaking amazes me how deeply convinced these people can remain in the face of what seems like strong credible contradictory evidence.

I hope that one of JREF's lawyers visits this thread and can comment on this. Maybe if he hasn't showed up in a few days I'll mention this thread to amateur scientist in a PM.

Another issue that might be discussed is this BS where jurors are led to believe that a person's emotional response to an event is a useful clue as to evaluating the likelihood of an individual's guilt. I am highly skeptical of that notion. If I was to be wrongly convicted that one occurs to me as the most likely cause. A bunch of people sitting around the table trying to decide if I displayed the emotions of an innocent person. Why don't they just cast dice to decide whether to vote for conviction or not?

[fuelair]

I read the linked article and was astounded that the government even suggested that the fire had been set with 60 gallons of fuel oil. I don't think that anyone should have let that get by without proof of detectable oil residues in the structural remains.

Perhaps the issue is a much broader one. Perhaps this is banal but our public institutions are only as good as the public that comprises it. This instance is not nearly the first or only occurence of a great wrong caused by a lack of critical reasoning and due diligence. Thank FSM that science-based methods finally caught up with the investigatgors. Now, we need the court system to disallow a charge of arson without evidence that an accelerant was identified in the structural remains. Juries composed of average citizens may often lack one person who keeps asking for the missing evidence that should exist given the claims of either the defendant or the plaintiff/prosecutor.

We all do owe it to our society to detect and blow the whistle on critical but untested policies.

In case you were not aware of it - people who know about the topic are purposefully kept off of juries (that's any topic that is being tried, not just arson)

[Slimething]

In case you were not aware of it - people who know about the topic are purposefully kept off of juries (that's any topic that is being tried, not just arson)

Thanks, fuleair, I had forgotten this. Twice, I've sat through voir dire proceedings only to be treated like poison. (And I don't know anything about anything!) Our judicial system seems more concerned with making litigators and judges feel better about what they do than to get at the truth of the matter at hand.

Sad. :(

[Brown]

WTF??? Flashover was well-understood by the mid-70s. I was working in a fire research center then, and flashover was under intensive study. We might have had to scribe our data on wet clay tablets while fending off wildebeests with sharpened sticks, but we had thermocouples, airflow meters, video cameras, and the willingness (or rather, the eagerness) to build full-scale rooms and set them on fire.Not only was flashover known, it was also known that fires do not always burn upward. I once asked a fire investigator, "Don't fires always burn upward?" He chuckled and replied, "How about a candle? A candle burns downward." He then described several ways in which fires can burn downward.

For most people who have a fire, the ones they really have to worry about are the insurance adjusters. Bless 'em, but many adjusters are amateur sleuths who will haul out every canard, incorrect guideline and mistaken clue as unquestionable proof of arson ... and use them to deny your claim (even if the investigator rules the fire was accidental).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Science Channel addressed the "crazed glass" thing in a show earlier this year, was fascinating.

Along similar lines, some bullet forensics has been "shot" down. They used to think that the lead used in bullets was (1) completely homogeneous and (2) unique to each batch of bullets. They had been using this to tie bullets to people (analyze the bullet used in the crime, analyze same caliber bullets the defendant possessed, if they match, bingo). Turns out that both 1 and 2 are incorrect.

[Myriad]

Not only was flashover known, it was also known that fires do not always burn upward. I once asked a fire investigator, "Don't fires always burn upward?" He chuckled and replied, "How about a candle? A candle burns downward." He then described several ways in which fires can burn downward.

Yep, and usually for the same reason it burns downward in the candle: radiant heat transfer. Flashover occurs when the radiant heat transfer from the accumulated hot smoke at the ceiling becomes sufficient to ignite materials elsewhere in the room.

It's hard to describe what a room in flashover is actually like. It's nothing like Hollywood depicts, where the hero runs into the burning room with his arm across his mouth, and just kind of dodges between a burning doorway over here and a burning table over there until he finds the kid hiding behind the bed and runs out the door with her. In a real fire, with a normal ceiling, the room is filled with opaque smoke about twice as hot as an oven. A single breath is lethal. (There may be clear cooler air down near the floor.) The bed, the carpet, the paint on the walls, and everything else is burning. Firemen wear protective gear and respirators for a reason, and it's not to keep them warm.

If you know your kid (or even someone else's kid) is in a burning house, you might have to go in and try. I understand. I would too, I think. Your chances are better if you know what you're up against. You might survive if you crawl on your belly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Art Vandelay]

Isn't this a sentence fragment?
"It wasn't until 1992, when a guide to fire investigations by the National Fire Protection Association — "NFPA921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" — clearly laid out, in a document relied upon by authorities nationwide, that the earlier beliefs were wrong."

[qayak]

Okay, half the problem is the fact that it took so long for the correct information to get out to the people doing the investigating. The other half is that peoples' lifes are being ruined and in some instances they are being put to death because of it.

How do you fix THAT?

[Dark Jaguar]

That's VERY interesting, but I think the real question that any red blooded American is asking right now is, how can I use this to get away with insurance fraud?

[Iamme]

In case you were not aware of it - people who know about the topic are purposefully kept off of juries (that's any topic that is being tried, not just arson)

I'll have to remember that. If I get called up for jury durty for a murder where the weapon of means was a gun, I will tell them I own a gun and know all about them and what they can do. :)

[rjh01]

In Australia the questions a person who may get into the jury box include
1. Are you in certain occupations? These occupations disqualify you and others you can claim exemption.
2. Do you have the ability to be on a jury (physical and mental ability)
3. Do you know the witnesses?

The procession and the defence have no right to ask you any questions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Isn't this a sentence fragment?
"It wasn't until 1992, when a guide to fire investigations by the National Fire Protection Association — "NFPA921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations" — clearly laid out, in a document relied upon by authorities nationwide, that the earlier beliefs were wrong."
Yep, look at it w/o the middle phrase,
"It wasn't until 1992, ... , that the earlier beliefs were wrong."