[GSBN] Smoke vs Flames (was re:Re: FASBA Fire test)

[Bob Theis]

A 5 story telephone switching building burned on the Lower East Side of Manhattan when I lived there. I vividly remember  the thick, viscous-looking yellow green smoke of the burning wire insulation coiling out of the windows. 

Significantly, the fire burned a lot longer than usual because the toxicity of the smoke was such that the firemen could only stay in the building for a few minutes, even with full face breathing apparatus on. 

So I'd say there are indeed  more and less toxic smokes. 

Bob
On Feb 7, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Derek Stearns Roff wrote:

> Well, since I have accepted this generous employment opportunity from the Rub Tum Foundation, please post on this list the types of insulation that you would like to see incinerated in home video splendor.  And to follow up on one statement by the RTF Grants Commissioner, when the figures are given for fire deaths caused by smoke, I have never seen a distinction made between all-natural, organic, pro-biotic straw and wood toxic smoke, versus the awful, devil-spawn, disgusting petrochemical toxic smoke.  The cause of death reports that I have studied lump together everything floating around freely inside a burning structure into the same catch-all term, "smoke".  Separate toxicology studies exist for different materials, of course, but they don't seem to be reflected as distinctions in the general "smoke death" statistics.  
> 
> On a related note, CMHC reported that more people in Canada are killed each year from residential radon exposure, than from residential fires.  So we will certainly include the burning of radon in the planned video series.  
> 
> Derelict
> 
> Derek Roff
> Having been declared too quirky for Albuquerky, 
> Now living south of Santa Fe, NM
> 
> On Feb 7, 2014, at 1:05 PM, RT wrote:
> 
>> in GSBN Digest, Vol 34, Issue 19, Bruce King of Sausalito wrote:
>> 
>>> And, while I'm sure that plenty of unpleasant gases and particulates come out of burning straw, I bet that, as a whole, the effects are much less harmful than the junk that come out of burning modern/industrialized building materials, especially plastics and the hundreds of petrochemical compounds that we routinely use.
>> 
>> I'm undecided as to whether or not to take Bruce's bet.
>> 
>> Perhaps it should be mentioned that in over 90% of building fires that result in deaths,  the deaths were due to the smoke (carbon monoxide, CO2 poisoning, lack of oxygen) rather than the flames.
>> 
>> Would I rather die of smoke from burning straw or smoke from burning plast-eccchhhh! ?
>> 
>> Surprisingly, some plast-ecccchhh! insulations generate very little/innocuous smoke when exposed to flame and some even self-extinguish when the flame is removed. But some plast-ecchhh! insulations generate great volumes of nasty-looking black smoke and continue to burn after the flame source is removed.
>> 
>> OTOH, mineral wool insulation (ie Roxul) simply does not burn and generates zero smoke.
>> 
>> I nominate the Alberquerky Derelict as a candidate to make a YouToob video demonstrating the fire and smoke characteristics of small samples of say, a dozen insulation (conventional and NatBuild) materials.
>> 
>> Thengya. Thengyallverramuch.
>> 
>> -- 
>> === * ===
>> Rob Tom AOD257
>> Kanata, Ontario, Canada
>> 
>> < A r c h i L o g i c  at  Y a h o o  dot  c a  >
>> (manually winnow the chaff from my edress if you hit "reply")
>> _______________________________________________
>> GSBN mailing list
>> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
>> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN
> 
> Derek Roff
> derek at unm.edu
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GSBN mailing list
> GSBN at sustainablesources.com
> http://sustainablesources.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/GSBN

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sustainablesources.com/pipermail/gsbn/attachments/20140207/36614715/attachment.htm>