Holidays Most Dangerous Time for House Fires

The next two weeks are the most dangerous time of the year for house fires, according to fire safety experts. From Dec.23 through Dec. 25, and Dec. 26 through New Year’s, the chances of a candlelit fire soar more than 300 percent.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, new homes — built with and stuffed full of synthetic materials — burn up six times faster than older homes built 50 years ago.
“Ultimately [these products] are made of crude oil,” Tom Chapin, vice president of corporate research for Underwriters Lab, said of most modern furniture and construction. “Crude oil makes products easier to make, but in a fire they revert back to their liquid state.”
According to FEMA, fire deaths have been down 2 percent in the past five years, but deaths from accidental fires have gone up 18 percent. Cooking fires are up 16 percent.
As part of a demonstration for ABC News, Underwriters Lab in Chicago constructed a full modern living room in a warehouse, replete with plush couch, wide-screen TV, books and even kids’ toys.
“Everything … eventually everything will burn,” said Chapin. “We are surrounded by many synthetic materials, plastic … toys. … A lot of it is in the details of what is in the fabric, the foams, the cushioning. … This whole room is fuel, and the appearance is deceptive.”
The I-beams that form the superstructure of most newer homes are also susceptible to fire and heat. They tend to be stronger, lighter and more durable than traditional two-by-fours. But because they are composed of pressed wood – essentially woodchips glued together — they weaken at a rate of three times faster than traditional lumber. Those weakened floor beams cause floors to cave in and are among the leading cause of death among firefighters.
“That strength rapidly changes, and we see surprising changes in that structure,” Chapin said. “You wouldn’t want to be upstairs in just a little while.”,
As part of the demonstration staged for ABC News at the Underwriter’s Lab, a fleece blanket was ignited — rather easily by placing it near a candle. Within a minute the fleece caught fire and about a minute later later the couch was ablaze, spewing noxious gases. Roughly four minutes after the fleece caught fire, the warehouse room became an inferno, with flames spewing 8 feet out and dozens of feet high. The temperature in the demo area spiked quickly to nearly 1000 degrees.
While synthetic materials have made household construction and products sturdier and cheaper, they’re also more flammable. And technology has been slow to respond. Mattresses, however, once the chief killer in fires, seem to be an exception. They are now designed to burn more slowly. Some mattresses ABC News tested at the Underwriters Labs were nearly self-extinguishing.
But the real lifesaver in a fire, said Chapin, is awareness. A smoke detector with working batteries is likely the best bet.
“That’s the sound,” he said of the “beep, beep.
Email




RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I watched the segment about holiday house fires tonight and was appalled by the final comments, “If it takes more than a cup of water to put out the fire, stop and let professionals do the job” (parapharsed). This is terrible advice! First of all, people should have fire extinguishers throughout their homes homes, especially in the kitchen. For small fires, all attemps should be made to put them out using a fire extinguisher. Throwing water on some fires, like grease fires or electrical fires, can make the situation worse. Your correspondent failed to tell people the approriate steps to take in the advent of a fire that any fire station could provide. It was lazy, misleading, and dangerous reporting.
Posted by: William Travis | December 20, 2011, 7:16 pm 7:16 pm
I actually live in a one year old home and our house was built a.without a fireplace and b.our home insurance policy prohibits the burning of any materials inside of the house… That means candles and incense and such. No smoking etc. Smart people just eliminate the danger because they know the risk for disaster is prevalent should they not follow the rules.
Posted by: ALeigh | December 20, 2011, 10:10 pm 10:10 pm
After watching the segment on the news last night I was very disapointed that the only mention of protection for home fires were smoke detectors which should have been refered to as smoke alarms becuse smoke detectors are a device that detects smoke but sends the information to an audible device as where a smoke alarm detects the presense of smoke and alarms its self. Yes it is true that due to the building construction and home furnishings home fires due burn at much higher temperature and consume a home much faster that ever before , so it would have been much more effective to talk about the positive effects of residential fire sprinklers. Residential fire sprinklers are a cost effective life saving system that can easily be installed in your home and are even required in new construction in few cities accross the country. My point is that yes smoke alarms to help alert the occupants in the event of a fire, but if a fire can consume a room in just a matter of minutes why would you not consider a residential sprinkler system that is designed to allow time for families to escape. Its a very good and reliable concept that the public just needs to be made more aware of.
Posted by: Kenny Custer | December 21, 2011, 9:34 am 9:34 am
Congratulations to ABC news for not turning this segment into a sales pitch for fire sprinklers. Unfortunately, the video exaggerates the rate of fire growth since one wall is missing from the room, which allows an unlimited supply of oxygen to feed the fire.
Smoke alarms protect against both burning and smoldering fires, but sprinklers will let a sleeping person die from smoke inhalation in a smoldering fire. Government tests show that basic smoke alarms are adequate, but an interconnected combination of ion and photo alarms is the latest recommendation.
Posted by: Skyler | December 21, 2011, 11:47 am 11:47 am
This is not about the removal of smoke alarms, and the addition of fire sprinklers. This is about the implementation of residential fire sprinklers along with smoke alarms to give adequte time for families to escape. The objective is life safety plain and simple! So ask yourself if your clothes were on fire would you want someone to tell you that they are on fire, or put the fire out???
Posted by: Kenny Custer | December 21, 2011, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
If my clothes were on fire and I couldn’t figure that out for myself, I would agree that I needed sprinklers. Statistically, the yearly chance of dying in a home fire is about 1 in 100,000. If you eliminate risks like not having working smoke alarms, smoking while in bed or intoxicated, improper heater placement, etc., and add beneficial conditions like Aleigh posted above, I would guess the odds of being a fatality are closer to 1 in a million. It seems to me that a sprinkler mandate is just a way of using the high-risk behavior of some people to justify mandating sprinklers for the more responsible and successful homebuyers. If sprinklers are needed for a fire, it will most likely be after the house is in the hands of less responsible occupants who will have already rendered the sprinkler system ineffective.
Posted by: Skyler | December 22, 2011, 10:53 am 10:53 am