CCAI-70-WEB-cl
image image image image image image

SAVE THE DATE

CCAI October 21-24

Fire Investigation Training Seminar

 

Watch the video


CLICK HERE

From Out of the Abyss...

This week’s article from the past is titled Incendiary Fires Can Be Spotted and was written by Benjamin Horton, CPCU, who was President of the National Adjuster Traing School in Louisville, Kentucky..  It is taken from the Decembe 1968 Vol. XVI No.5 issue.

Incendiary Fires Can Be Spotted 

In the new issue of NFPA Journal®, President Jim Shannon said the Association will focus on the leading causes of home fires, including cooking. "We also need to continue to push hard for home fire sprinklers. That's still a large priority for NFPA, and we plan to work very aggressively in 2014 on our residential sprinkler initiative," he said.

Read more...

From the Danish Journal of Archaeology

Abstract

During excavations of the Viking-age ring fortress Borgring, Denmark, traces of a devastating fire was uncovered. The National Forensic Services of the Danish Police were invited to participate in a novel collaboration, applying contemporary forensic fire investigation to an archaeological site. This paper presents the results and sets a benchmark for future applications. The investigation leads to a revised reconstruction of the fortress and the development of the fire. The application of fire investigation methods, following the Daubert standard criteria, enhance the documentation and analysis of archaeological sites, while archaeological methods show significant potential at modern fire scenes.

Read more...

BY VYTO BABRAUSKAS

SHOCK, INJURY, OR DEATH {ELECTROCUTION) from the passage of electric current through a human body has been studied for more than a century. The level of response or injury depends on the magnitude of the current and also on the frequency, whether it is direct current (DC), power line alternating current (AC), or AC voltages of higher frequency. Some typical values are shown in Table 1.1 Children are generally more sensitive than adults; thus, guidelines often assume that a child is the person to be protected. With firefighting, however, this assumption is not reasonable. Furthermore, protection against a startle reaction is the most severe level of protection. A startle reaction is described as one in which a person jumps because of a small shock that does not injure the person. No direct electrical injury occurs because of startling; there is some hazard caused by jumping, but it is remote.

The "inability to let go" of an energized conductor that has been accidentally grabbed can cause pain and injury if the current increases to an injurious level. This is also called "muscle tetanization." Thus. Many safety requirements are based on a safety-factor-reduced value of the let-go current, even though this is quite a conservative stance. Matters are further complicated. Since individuals show variation in their responses and standards, bodies typically pick a very conservative level (often the 0.5 percentile) instead of the 50-percentile value. Physiological effects of electric current, furthermore, depend strongly on frequency. The most dangerous frequencies are the 50- or 60-Herz (Hz) power line frequencies. The human body becomes less sensitive to electric current at high frequencies.2 Dalziel3 has published a useful summary of safety guidance on electric shock.

Read more...

Establishing the Cause of a Fire Through Process of Elimination

process of elimination.1Establishing the cause of a fire through the process of elimination has been a hot topic in recent years, both among subrogation professionals as well as inside the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).  In 2011, NFPA explicitly rejected negative corpus as a reliable methodology in fire investigation.  Specifically, NFPA 921-18.6.5 (2011) provided:

Inappropriate Use of the Process of Elimination.  The process of determining the ignition source for a fire, by eliminating all ignition sources found, known, or believed to have been present in the area of origin, and then claiming such methodology is proof of an ignition source for which there is no evidence of its existence, is referred to by some investigators as “negative corpus” …. This process is not consistent with the Scientific Method, is inappropriate, and should not be used because it generates un-testable hypotheses and may result in incorrect determinations of the ignition source and first fuel ignited. Any hypothesis formulated for the casual factors (e.g., first fuel, ignition source, and ignition sequence), must be based on facts. Those facts are derived from evidence, observations, calculations, experiments and the laws of science. Speculative information cannot be included in the analysis.

The NFPA’s rejection of negative corpus sparked much debate and discussion in the fire investigation community.  In the 2014 version of NFPA 921, the NFPA added information to better clarify its actual intent.  Although continuing to reject the use of negative corpus, the 2014 version of NFPA 921 recognizes that the process of elimination is appropriate in certain situations.  Specifically, NFPA 921-19.6.5 (2014) inserts three sentences addressing the appropriate use of the process of elimination:

Appropriate Use.  The process of elimination is an integral part of the scientific method.  Alternative hypotheses should be considered and challenged against the facts.  Elimination of a testable hypothesis by disproving the hypothesis with reliable evidence is a fundamental part of the scientific method.

Section 19.6.5 goes on to state that “the process of elimination can be used inappropriately.”  The remainder of Section 19.6.5 includes the exact language of Section 18.6.5 (2011), rejecting the use of negative corpus as a reliable methodology in fire investigation.

It is important for the subrogation professional to recognize that the process of elimination remains a viable method for determining the cause of a fire in the appropriate circumstances.  Because the 2014 version of 19.6.5 is so recent, it is impossible to determine the courts’ likely interpretation as to what those “appropriate circumstances” are.  We will continue to update this blog as the courts begin to address the application of Section 19.6.5 in future cases.

Banner

Location

1279 North White Avenue
Pomona, California 91768
Phone:  (909) 865-5004
Fax (909) 865-5024
8:00 am - 5:00 pm
Monday - Friday

Disclaimer

This is the official website of the California Conference of Arson Investigators.

The information published on this website... more...