BY JAMES M. McLOUGHLIN and BRETT M. MARTINEZ
Unlike most developed nations, the United States has relied on technology and government code enforcement instead of social pressure to curb the problems related to fire and fire fatalities. Has this method worked? In the past, research such as the America Burning1 Congressional study revealed that the United States leads the list of developed nations in fire fatalities. Based on these findings, proactive government-funded fire prevention programs have been incorporated all over America. Would a decrease in fatal fires be an indication of success? Or, more simply put, has this prevention and technological effort paid off?
 |
For the past 30 years, the Suffolk County (NY) Department of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services has been investigating fatal fires and collecting related data (see “Type of Data”). During that time, the County Fire Marshal’s Office has noted some interesting trends and common factors involving fatal fires.
 |
Between 1973 and 2004, there were 701 fire fatalities in Suffolk County; the majority occurred in residential structures. Since 1982, these data have become more detailed.
METHODOLOGY
This article does not include statistical analysis. Instead, whenever possible, we focus on sheer numbers and categories. See the sidebar “Suffolk County Demographics and Pertinent Facts” for a breakdown of the county’s demographic information. Since these factors may vary for each state, city, and community, we did not attempt to establish statistical information related to affluence, ethnicity, household income, or geography. These statistics have too many variables and can easily be manipulated to focus on one perspective.
HAVE FATAL FIRES DECREASED?
 |
Has the number of fatal fires increased? Have technology and fire safety education affected the incidence of fatal fires? Keep in mind that technology for preventing fires comes in many different forms-affordable fire detection devices, fire resistant materials, safer construction designs, and automatic shutoff and tamper devices in appliances, for example. All this technology coupled with national, state, and local requirements to equip structures with these devices has allowed us to work past our societal faults. At least, that is what the numbers in Suffolk County have shown.
POPULATION
During the time frame of data collection, the population of Suffolk County increased from approximately 1.1 million in 1973 to approximately 1.2 in 1983 to approximately 1.3 million in 1993. Currently, the population is approximately 1.4 million.
STRUCTURAL FIRES
Over the same time period that the population grew, the percentage of structural fires in the county also increased. Structural fires were first noted at 4,444 (or 20%) of the 22,133 total alarms in 1973 and grew to 18,479 (or 40%) of the 45,072 total fire incidents in 2003. Fatal fires, on the other hand, have constantly declined each decade-from a high of 323 fatalities between 1973 and 1983 (or 47% of the total deaths) to 226 deaths between 1984 and 1994 (32% of the total deaths).
Finally, the number of fatal fires decreased to 152 between 1995 and 2004 (21% of the total deaths) (see Figure 1). These raw numbers clearly show that as there has been an increase in population there has also been a steady increase in the number of fire incidents and structural fire calls. Yet, the number of fatal fire occurrences has decreased. Therefore, it is safe to assume that our primary question can be answered in the affirmative: Fatal fires are decreasing in Suffolk County and, hopefully, will continue to decrease with continued assistance from technology and education.
 |
Studying the fatal fire information collected and analyzing the facts will help improve the rate of decline. Evaluation of these facts will improve our prevention and technology efforts. In addition, the changes adopted as a result of the analysis will strengthen fire search and fire suppression operations. By continuing to collect the data, we will be able to gauge additional factors related to fatal fire increase or decrease. The effort to improve the type of information collected continues to advance, but the core data remain the same. Figure 2 shows core data collected by our office.
The Suffolk County data since 1982 have produced information on 439 fire fatalities that occurred during 379 recorded incidents. We removed the incidents related to transportation fire fatalities and focused on the 424 structural deaths. These records have led to the following conclusions and to the disproval of some common beliefs about fatal fire incidents.
Myth: Intentionally Set Fires
A commonly held belief is that intentionally set fires, or arson, account for a large number of fatalities. Another common belief is that most mass-fatality fires are also intentionally set. As far as Suffolk County incidents are concerned, these assumptions are not accurate. In fact, intentionally set fires and possible intentionally set fires accounted for only 39 fatalities since 1982. Although many arson or suspected arson fires receive extensive media coverage, they are rare. The fact is that most fatal fire incidents are not the result of intentional acts.
We could try to build the numbers by including children who play with matches and lighters, but this would be inaccurate, since these fires are not considered criminal acts. Furthermore, adding children would only increase the numbers to 51 fatalities.
 |
The fact is that most fatalities occurred in nonsuspicious circumstances, and the numbers show that suspicious fatalities fell to the fourth of leading causes. Figure 3 illustrates the breakdown of leading causes.
MYTH: Fresh-Cut Christmas Trees
Although fresh-cut ornamental trees have been known to increase the rate of combustion and remain a hazard within a structure, there have been fewer than five fatalities related to Christmas tree fires in Suffolk County. This may be an indication that fire prevention efforts may have played a direct role in reducing this type of fire in Suffolk; we have been waging an aggressive annual campaign to promote the safe use of trees within homes for the past 20 years. Incidents involving fresh-cut trees have been so few that they are listed under miscellaneous causes.
MYTH: Children and Fire
Although juvenile firesetting is a valid concern and requires proper attention, in Suffolk County, children and fire are not the primary threat; it was last on our list of known causes for fatal fires (as shown in Figure 3).
Although we cannot prove it, fire prevention programs, such as the “Learn Not to Burn” program, taught in many public schools and by fire prevention officers, probably helped to decrease the number of deaths in this category.
LEADING CAUSES OF FATAL FIRES
As with the national average, fires caused by smoking materials led the list for fatalities in Suffolk County.
At a distant second was electrical causes (appliances and distribution systems), followed by heating appliances (including primary and auxiliary systems).
As mentioned earlier, intentionally set fires were in fourth place.
Cooking fires and nonsuspicious explosions (commercial and residential fires caused by flammable vapors, gas, and dust) were fifth and sixth.
The seventh category of causes of fatal fires was miscellaneous. It includes fires caused by fresh-cut Christmas trees (fewer than five fatalities). Also included were fires started by children playing with ignition sources (such as matches and lighters).
Note: Fires of undetermined origin were not listed. Undetermined incidents are on the rise because National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921, Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, 2004 edition, Section 16.2.4, states that no fire cause should be listed unless it can be proven as the cause.
CAUSE ANALYSIS
In an analysis of individual causes, the following results were calculated. To allow further analysis by other researchers, we presented only origins and locations that had 10 or more incidents. Fatalities related to time with fewer than 10 incidents were presented to show the dominance of one time frame over the others.
Note: The numbers in some categories do not add up because of poor data collection in the earlier years: basic information such as time of day, the locations of victims, and fire origin site were not always documented.
Smoking Materials
Fatalities 111
Rooms(s) of Origin: Bedroom 36
Living room 31
Victim Location(s): Bedroom 43
Living room 20
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 43
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 31
4 p.m. to midnight 35
Electrical
Fatalities 50
Rooms(s) of Origin: Living spaces 26 (bdrm, lvng rm, kitchen)
Victim Location(s): Bedroom 26
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 26
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 8
4 p.m. to midnight 16
Heating Appliances
Fatalities 48
Rooms(s) of Origin: Living spaces 14
(bdrm, lvng rm, kitchen)
Victim Location(s): Bedroom 27
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 33
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 5
4 p.m. to midnight 10
Suspicious or Intentionally Set
Fatalities 39
Rooms(s) of Origin: Staircase 10
Victim Location(s): Bedroom 9
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 22
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 6
4 p.m. to midnight 11
Cooking Appliances
Fatalities 36
Rooms(s) of Origin: Kitchen 36
Victim Location(s): Kitchen 9
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 11
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 14
4 p.m. to midnight 8
Children Playing with Matches*
Fatalities 13
Rooms(s) of Origin: Bedroom 9
Closet 2
Living room 1
Victim Location(s): Bedroom 11
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 2
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 6
4 p.m. to midnight 5
* Note: Although this category does not have the number of incidents necessary for valid analysis, children who play with matches have been broken down because of the great interest in this fire cause.
OVERALL TIME FRAME FOR STRUCTURAL FIRE DEATHS
Fatalities 424
Time Frame: Midnight to 8 a.m. 191
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. 98
4 p.m. to midnight 112
MONTH OF OCCURRENCE
January: 66. Since 1982, there was at least one fatal fire during January (with the exception of 1991 and 1998).
February: 55
December: 45
August: 18
 |
See Figure 4 for the complete month-by-month breakdown.
SEASONAL BREAKDOWN
Most of the fire fatalities (166) occurred during the winter months. Heating equipment was involved in 32 of these deaths.
Smoking materials were the leading cause of death during the other three seasons: spring-105, fall-84, and summer-63.
AGE
Following is the age breakdown for victims:
17 and younger: 78 victims; 51 incidents. The number one cause of the fires was heating equipment (18), followed by children and ignition sources (11).
18 years to 64 years: 196 victims, 174 incidents. The leading causes of the fires were smoking (41), electrical (29), and heating (20). Intentionally set fires were close behind at 19 victims.
65 years and older: 113 deaths; 108 incidents. The fire causes were smoking (55), electrical (13), and cooking (12).
TRENDS
Although current national trends have noted an increase in fire incidents caused by candles, Suffolk County has not seen an increase in fires associated with candles. In the past five years, fire incidents caused by candles have occurred; two fire fatalities were noted during that time frame. Three deaths occurred during the mid-1980s. Once again, some of the “undetermined” fires could possibly have involved candles, but that will remain a mystery.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of Suffolk County’s fatal fire data supports the following conclusions:
It is highly probable that the majority of fatal fires to which you will respond will be nonsuspicious, although all fatal fire incidents should be handled as crime scenes until all causes have been ruled out.
Most victims will be found in bedrooms during sleeping hours (midnight to 8 a.m.), which continues to be the most susceptible time for fire fatalities. The exception to this finding appears to be fatalities involving children who play with ignition sources; the deaths occurred primarily during daytime hours.
The majority of fatal fires occurred during the winter months; the least number occurred during the summer season.
Seniors comprise the group at highest risk for single fatal fire incidents.
Children comprise the group at highest risk for mass fatal fire incidents.
SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE FUTURE/RECOMMENDATIONS
The data collected have already helped to implement some improvements in building codes and safety measures. For example, in response to data indicating smoking materials being the #1 cause of fire fatalities, New York State recently passed a law that prohibits the sale of cigarettes that do not meet self-extinguishing requirements.
The push toward the use of model national building code requirements will help to address the problems related to unmaintained smoke detectors. New construction now requires hard-wired devices with battery backup (Residential Code of NYS Section R317).
In the future when evaluating fatal fires, additional effort should be put into identifying the type/product brand of smoking material so that any relation to fire deaths can be noted. It is hoped that safer smoking materials will help to reduce the death rate in fires associate with this cause. In addition, future analysis should attempt to identify the role alcohol/controlled substances play in fatal fires. Such information related to the victim can be obtained from the report of the medical examiner or the coroner.
The fatal fire data also support the recommendation that aggressive fire prevention programs at the elementary school level should continue to address the issues of children playing with matches as well as focus on the safe use of auxiliary heating equipment and related fire safety topics.
With regard to senior citizens, those who live alone and those who are restricted in movement require the most personalized commitment. As the population and their homes grow older, more seniors will stay home. This senior stay-at-home society will require more electrical power from systems not designed to meet the demands of the new electrical appliances. Items such as computers, modems, televisions, DVD players, auxiliary heaters, medical monitors, and prescribed medical devices tax the electrical capabilities of post-World War II residences. In fact, only homes that have been built since the late 1980s have been designed with the greater amperage requirements in mind. Therefore, fire prevention officers will need to address this concern. The U.S. Fire Administration has a campaign underway to help educate seniors to the dangers of fire. Information is available at www.usfa.fema.gov/50Plus/.
As for other technological improvements, more information is needed on smoke detectors and electrical systems. In the future, we will attempt to capture in our data information related to the type of fire detection systems (hardwire or battery-operated) present, if any. To date, we have not noted any fire fatalities in structures with working fire suppression systems, such as fire sprinkled buildings or working fire detection systems. Unfortunately, dead or missing batteries have been noted at some fatal fire incidents. In the future, we also hope to ascertain the date on which the fire-damaged structures were issued a certificate of occupancy. This will enable us to determine how past, current, and future building codes regarding such items as window design, size, and electrical system capabilities affect fatality statistics.
The records show that fatal fires have decreased, indicating that efforts in prevention and technological advancements are paying off. As the “baby boom” generation grows older, we will continue to analyze the numbers to see if our efforts will continue to pay off and how we can improve the chances of survival in structural fires. ■
Endnote
1. The original America Burning report was issued in 1974. It focused attention on the nation’s fire problems. It resulted in the creation of the U.S. Fire Administration and the National Fire Academy.
In December 2000, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) released the final report of America Burning Recommissioned, America at Risk: Findings and Recommendations on the Role of the Fire Service in the Prevention and Control of Risks in America. The report, the work of a 24-person commission, reached two major conclusions: The frequency and severity of fires in America result from the nation’s failure to adequately apply and fund known loss-reduction strategies. It laid the primary responsibility for fire prevention, suppression, and action on other hazards dealt with by the fire service with state and local governments but said “a substantial role exists for the federal government in funding and technical support.”
Its second conclusion was as follows: “Today’s fire departments have responsibilities extending well beyond the traditional fire hazard …. Firefighters, who too frequently expose themselves to unnecessary risk, and the communities they serve, would all benefit if the approach to avoiding loss from fires and other hazards was equal to the dedication shown in firefighting and rescue operations.”
The report is available at www.usfa.fema.gov; click on “publications.” It may also be ordered from the U.S. Fire Administration, Publications Office, 16825 South Seton Ave., Emmitsburg, MD 21727.
