PATTON REPORT NO.
54
Black Fire
The following presentation was made at the 69th Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs
on August 24, 1977 at the Hilton Hotel, Quebec City, Canada.
BLACK FIRE
The United States leads the entire world in per
capita fire deaths. Canada, our northern neighbor
runs a close second.
For many, many years, following each major fire,
new fire regulations and codes have been prepared.
The National Fire Protection Association, which is an
organization that has near monopoly control of the
fire regulations for our two countries, has been the
producer of the codes and regulations.
This process of producing new fire regulations fol-
lowing each major fire has progressed to the point
where America now leads the entire world in fire
regulations. Today, when constructing a building the
hidden costs of these fire regulations may sometimes
actually double the construction costs.
So, America leads the entire world in two fire re-
lated categories — in the extent of the fire regulations
— and in the number of fire deaths.
This appears to be a contradictory situation be-
cause one would naturally assume that as the fire
regulations proliferated — and as the fire safety costs
in new buildings rose — that the fire losses would
diminish. But it hasn't happened. Why not?
At this point in time I am proposing a very fright-
ening — an extremely devastating theory about fire.
am suggesting that many of our fire regulations have
been developed — not to reduce fire — not to save
human life — but rather to maximize the profits of
those organizations that market fire safety products
and services.
I am suggesting that some fire codes and regula-
tions actually are cleverly oriented to promote fire —
to insure high profits for fire protection products by
guaranteeing a continued high burn rate in America.
I think the time has arrived when you gentlemen of
the fire services must carefully examine this idea —
and look very deeply into what I consider to be cor-
ruptions in the fire code making process.
In short, gentlemen, I believe we can no longer
divide fire into two categories, the friendly and the
hostile fire — but we must consider the possible exist-
ence of the black fire. A black fire is a fire that grows
large and kills primarily because the fire code makers
have planned it that way.
Now I realize that the idea I am proposing is one of
a very revolutionary nature. The very idea that a high
fire burn rate could actually be planned in the coun-
cils of our code writers is a most alarming concept.
But in our society we have come to believe that wars
are sometimes motivated by human greed and cun-
ning and if man can create and wage a war — with
wholesale slaughter of lives on both sides — is it
inconceivable that those who write our fire codes
may be more concerned with promoting their own
products, and enlarging the markets for these pro-
ducts, than they are in humantarian endeavors?
HOW IT WAS DONE
I realize that even if you grant me the possibility
that the people who write the codes could be profit
makers first — humanitarians last — you may immedi-
ately ask, how could it be done? How can one write a
code to promote fire — it appears to be an impossible
task.
But I believe it is possible to do this. As an
example of how this could be done, I give you the
Harmer House Nursing House fire in Marietta, Ohio
that occurred on the night of January 9, 1970, when
the lives of 33 elderly people were snuffed out.
This fire occurred in a one story structure that was
a near perfect copy of the NFPA Life Safety Code
provisions. But a fire initiated within one room and
even though it was detected early it quickly pro-
gressed to flashover. Then, the post flashover fire
wiped out 33 lives in the time interval from flashover
to fire department arrival and control.
The NFPA investigated this fire. The investigators
had a full opportunity to issue a completely honest
and candid report concerning this flashover fire —
they could have alerted the world to the phenomenon
by which a contents type fire can wipe out lives with-
in a so-called fireproof building. But, a completely
candid report would have automatically led to the
conclusion that the NFPA Life Safety Code was not a
viable solution to the fire problem. The NFPA Life
Safety Code was a fantastically costly "solution" —
but it was not a good solution.
The NFPA investigators therefore did not even
mention the word "flashover" in their report. They
did not explain that prior to flashover, a fire may
seem to be not particularly serious — because it will
be relatively small and confined to one room — but
that once flashover occurred the fire could kill over a
wide area almost explosively. They did not discuss
flashover because the NFPA Life Safety Code does
not effectively deal with this phenomenon.
Instead they implied the fire was caused by the
carpeting on the floor. When the carpet arrived at the
testing laboratory it was discovered that it would not
burn of its own volition on the floor. Therefore, they
reversed its position, putting it on the ceiling of the
test tunnel — upside down on the ceiling — and in this
manner proved it could burn.
Some doors to some patient rooms off the corridor
were open during the fire. These rooms were black-
ened from about the 5 foot level up to and including
the ceilings. But the carpet on the floors in these
rooms was completely clean, totally unscorched. Now
I ask, why did the carpet fire in the hallway burn up
to the door of the open room, but not turn the
corner and burn into the room, even though it was
the exact same carpet? The answer is simple. The
carpet burned only in the area where flashover had
already occurred. In other words, the carpet on the
floor was the last item to enter the flashed over fire
condition.
Now let's look at how the distorted picture of this
fire as painted by the NFPA, and the misdirected
regulations following this fire, served the needs of the
profiteers — while at the same time preserving the
reputation of unsafe fire codes.
By shifting the blame away from the flashover fire
involving the normal contents of the room — and by
indirectly labelling the carpet as the villain, the NFPA
accomplished two things. First, the entire carpet
industry was dragged into the category of materials
that must be tested and certified for fire safety. Thus,
those who control the fire regulations achieved a
major coup by gaining control of yet another major
segment of our commerce. A new regulatory empire
was constructed on the ashes of this fire.
The second result of the misdirected investigation
was that the unsafe, but profit oriented NFPA Life
Safety Code was exonerated in the process. Because
of this the very regulations that were the root cause
of this one fire — where 33 died — were maintained in
force — with the probability that they would lead to
new fires — and new opportunities for new fire regu-
lations. NFPA sells fire regulations. Sure enough,
since that time new fires caused by the same old
conditions have occurred.
PROMOTING THE INFERIOR —
SUPPRESSING THE SUPERIOR
It is my theory that our fire codes have been
oriented toward preserving fire as a marketing tool
through the process of promoting inferior solutions
to fire while simultaneously suppressing the best solu-
tions to fire. The best solutions are the least liked by
the profit-making fire monopoly. The profit-makers
who make profits from fire are, as a class, wary of
low cost and extremely reliable solutions to fire. Such
better solutions are a threat to their own markets.
But these same men will give the green light to in-
ferior systems having high price tags. The most
powerful organizations in the code-making councils
are those who make the profits from fire.
You are of course familiar with the fact that loss of
life in buildings protected with a fire sprinkler system
is near zero. Statistics developed over a period of 90
years in Australia indicates that the number of sprink-
lers that will open in a light hazard occupancy, such
as a hospital, is 1.34. This means the water needed to
control fire would normally be less than 30 GPM. But
the NFPA sprinkler system codes were written to
demand huge water supplies, often in the 500-1000
GPM range, thus making such protection extremely
costly. Thus did they discourage low cost and better
systems.
CONTAINMENT, NOT SUPPRESSION
I believe the most insidious major concept pro-
moted by the fire monopoly is the "theory of
containment" as related to the so-called fireproof
building. The NFPA fire safety theory implies that
fire can be safely contained within the room where it
originates while the occupants of the building may
flee to the outdoors safely travelling along corridors
that are fire wall isolated from the contained fire.
Under this concept the fire theoretically burns con-
fined and harmless. But a live fire which is allowed to
burn freely behind a closed door is a disaster in the
making. It is like putting a vicious tiger in a room,
and leaving it there to grow hungry while assuming no
one will open the door! The confined fire will pro-
ceed to flashover — and then, when that door is
opened — goodbye Charlie. This "containment
theory" of fire safety which the NFPA has glorified
in their Life Safety Code is in reality an absolute
guarantee that deadly fires will continue. Yet it is
promoted by the NFPA in such a manner as to ob-
struct and discourage the real solution to fire.
For example, NFPA 101 mandates fireproofing of
the steel and a multitude of fire partitions and smoke
stop doors. These are all very costly. Then it declares
sprinklers to be not needed for buildings so designed.
Accordingly, sprinklers are then omitted in new con-
struction. The net result is a building subdivided into
many small compartments with each compartment
loaded with combustibles. Small compartments
actually speed up the flashover process. Therefore,
any fire that occurs is quite likely to proceed to the
flashover condition. Once that happens, all that is
needed is for one door to be open, or opened, then,
like lightening the combustible gases will flow rapidly
down the corridor flashing as it progresses. Those
who cannot immediately take to their heels and run
are likely to be overtaken and killed. This is the story
of the Harmer House fire.
The NFPA Life Safety Code and its underlying
theory of containment is not a solution to fire — it is
a guarantor of the continuity of deadly fires ... it
i mposes a non solution while simultaneously discour-
aging a true solution.
OTHER COSTLY "NON SOLUTIONS"
There are many other instances of codes and con-
cepts that are promoted, are profitable, and are
unrealistic from a true fire control viewpoint.
For example, when it comes to fighting an incipi-
ent fire the fire protection community has given the
amateur fire fighter the choice of two fire control
tools: A portable extinguisher which is a very costly
way to buy water ( and which emits a pencil lead thin
straight stream of water which is most ineffective);
or, a VA" fire hose line which has a stiffness and
nozzle reaction that makes it virtually impossible for
an amateur fire fighter to use effectively.
Why isn't the amateur fire fighter given a garden
type hose that is flexible — one which he can handle?
A small hose of this type is effective even for a flash-
over fire. The answer is obvious. The fire profiteers
could not successfully market "labeled" fire hose at a
Price of $200 to $400 per installed hose, or a
"labeled" 21/2 gallon container of water at perhaps
$30 if a far superior tool (namely the garden-type
hose) was recognized for fire safety and purchaseable
at a cost of $5 to $10 at the local hardware store.
The restaurant owner is sold a fire extinguishing
system for the kitchen range that protects against
about 18% of the fires he will have — and then the
system that will protect against 100% of the fires is
priced so as to discourage its use.
In a similar vein, as we work our way through the
vast array of fire codes, time and time again, we find
products of fire safety that are costly yet unreliable.
The fire codes have allowed the fire profiteer to have
his cake and eat it too. Billions of dollars worth of
fire safety products are being sold; and at the same
ti me fire has continued unabated and has served as a
market stimulant.
A TRULY FIRE SAFE AMERICA
But I have now given you enough of the negative
aspects of fire safety. We must not dwell forever on
the past manuverings and manipulations within the
code-making process. We must recognize that these
things have happened, and then go on to new solu-
tions, new and better ways to protect ourselves from
fire.
In this regard, I must say that the future looks very
bright indeed. Under a National Science Foundation
grant, the Battelle Columbus Labs and my firm,
Patton, Inc., have been working with The National
Fire Prevention and Control Administration in
Washington, D.C. to develop truly low cost and truly
reliable fire suppression systems. We are in the process
of proving out and preparing a standard for installing
a low cost suppression system in the one family
dwelling and mobile home. This system will be based
on a 10 GPM water supply. Yes, I said a 10 GPM
water supply, which is most revolutionary in fire
science.
It has long been our contention that virtually every
building in America already has enough water to
automatically control fire while fire is in a small
incipient stage. We are finding that we can use small
tube and very small orifice sprinklers to control fire
and maintain tolerable conditions within the
dwelling, or other building, to allow escape, rescue, or
ti me to complete the fire suppression with a small
hose if necessary.
 Our projections are that we can definitely protect a
one-family dwelling at a cost of less than 2% of the
construction price, possibly less than 1%.
In a larger building we can protect against fire
probably at a cost of 50 cents per square foot. Fur-
ther, when 50 cents per square foot sprinklers are
installed — often we can then safely remove as much
as $5.00 per square foot in useless fire safety costs. In
other words, we can make large buildings virtually
i mmune to fire and at the same time dramatically
reduce the cost of constructing these buildings. Such
solutions are not only technically feasible but to a
very significant degree have already proven them-
selves.
I believe that we are slowly entering a new era ot
fire safety and that someday in the not too distant
future we will see all buildings virtually immune to
fire. I believe that by the year 2000 almost every
building in Canada and the U. S. will be equipped
with a low cost fire detection and suppression system
that will reduce human loss of life from fire to near
zero.
PATTON, INC.
6075 Cleveland Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43229
The role of the fire department will change when
this comes about. As I see it, almost all buildings will
have built in fire protection systems that will be
directly wired to the fire station. The firemen will
respond to the automatic signals rapidly in small
vehicles. When they arrive they will only have to
complete the knock down to the already controlled
fire.
As of right now, the job of the fireman is the most
dangerous job in the world. Every year the death toll
of firemen is high and the injuries almost beyond
counting. But when we build protective systems into
all buildings, the fireman will be responding to far less
dangerous situations. By and large, they will be com-
pleting the extinguishment of fires that are already
controlled.
• The fireman of the future will require greater train-
ing in fire protection fundamentals, and in protection
system design and maintenance. The need for techni-
cal competence in fire services will gradually increase
and I believe this will open up many new opportuni-
ties for the fire services. The firemen will always be
needed.