1980's Fire Investigators Not Much More Than Dust Kickers

Is this true?

Could something have been missed?

www.theguardian.com...

The survivors are cracking up from the sudden controversy and in particular the images. This needs to be sorted out as quickly as possible.

If you are a fire investigator please help. Particularly if you are a fire investigator who believes a cigarette dropped through a gap onto litter containing hundreds of cigarette ends is without doubt the cause of a fire, proven by the fact wisps of smoke were seen an unspecified length of time later.

Please give your opinion on the certainty of the cause and the thoroughness of the investigation.

a reply to: Kester

Not sure about the cause of the fire. But I will say it was one of the most brutal Newsclips ever etched in my memory. I will never forget the man fully engulfed in flames walking on the field with jerky movements. Awful awful tragedy.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Kester
I will never forget the man fully engulfed in flames....

Those that were there remember the experience.

I'm sure the doctors in Bradford have had a surge in patients freaked by the media barrage of images. Images that haunt their dreams and their waking hours. I'm not going to apologise for spreading those images. I know apologies mean nothing. I'll just stop doing it and ask all others to avoid spreading images of the fire.

This needs to be sorted pronto for the sake of all survivors.

a reply to: Kester

The curse of modern media .

a reply to: Kester

Arson investigators essentially have their own cultural mythos that they project into the world of science as if it were science, despite it being pure pseudoscience..

Cameron Willingham not only lost his wife and children, but he got to rot in jail for burning them alive, and then be executed for it. It is all but conclusive that he was innocent. Only the obtuse argue for is guilt at this point.

Yes. We put an innocent man to death. All because of the pseudoscience of arson investigation

And now we have the FBI forensics labs being brought under closer scrutiny, too. I don't pay attention too much to the techniques used in forensics...but it appears that the reality is just as lame and silly as an episode of Bones (really, Bones....uploading a computer virus because of code etched into bone???)

I still get the feeling that about half of it all is made up. And I am more firm than ever in my belief that the Death Penalty is the ultimate act of barbarism from a superstitious culture. Our superstition tends to believe more in science than ghosts...but its the same thing.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I grew up surrounded by university staff. Science is often pseudoscience with more influence coming from the persona of the researcher than the validity of the data.

Edit to add I was always told science had been hijacked by politics long ago.

a reply to: Kester

Here we have video of 'dust kickers', or dust creators, sieving through debris looking for clues. It reminds me of the WTC investigation on Staten Island. Teams of detectives looked through the sifted debris for evidence, instead of looking at the debris as evidence.

I can't see how sieving and mixing the debris would reveal evidence of accelerants. It would probably have been more revealing to spend that time examining the appearance of the seat of the fire.

The design of the flooring, the steepness of the slope and the windrows of litter all contributed to a very rapid spread of the fire. But the initial build up to extreme heat in one area of flooring looks suspicious to me. I'm an ignoramus sticking my nose in with the benefit of hindsight. However statements from experts at the time also bring attention the the initial, surprisingly rapid build up of heat.

a reply to: Kester

Your impression of science is wrong because this is not how research is conducted at all. Besides, the fire investigators in question had no training. It's only since academics have taken a scientific approach to fire investigation have things got better.

a reply to: GetHyped

I was always told science had been hijacked by politics long ago.

This is the opinion of my parents who have been presented with awards for lifelong service to science.

a reply to: Kester

Then you've been told misinformation.

a reply to: GetHyped

It's an opinion formed from sixty years experience each and observed as rational scientists.

a reply to: Kester

Your opinion is from two people and it requires accepting what you say at face value. That's not how compelling arguments are made.

a reply to: GetHyped
Yes that was a broad claim. I can think of examples where politics has attempted to interfere with science, but I wouldn't characterize that interaction as a "hijacking". You can still read the papers by the scientists.

The new Cosmos series has an episode about an attempt by big oil to hide the truth about leaded gasoline contaminating us with toxic lead, but ultimately the science is what prevailed, not politics, which is why unleaded gasoline is now what's produced.

a reply to: Kester

The thing is, arson investigation is "sciencey", not science. while you have various scientific measurements taken to get some clarification of various facts, you don't have actual science behind how fires spread. In particular, the determination of when an accelerant is used when there is no chemical trace of it left. In the case of Willingham, the assumptions that are called "science" were almost certainly wrong.

Just imagine being accused of the killing of your wife and kids, when you didn't do it. Knowing that they burned alive is hell all on its own. But to have to then spend the rest of your life on death row, only to be released by a state sanction murder....I cannot think of a bigger injustice.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I guess it's the papers that get hijacked that don't get read.

At Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories a paper was written over a two year period. The electricity generating industry would have been impoverished by the acceptance of the findings. The paper was sent to every university in Britain. There wasn't a single response.

He was known to be naive. I have my doubts as to whether any of those papers were received. I expect they were intercepted soon after posting. He wouldn't have expected that.

He gave no thought to the fate of the waste from his experiments. It was thrown into the active waste vaults. The complexities of the experiments absorbed his full concentration.

He had no idea that blowing the whistle on all magnox reactors being part of the weapons programme would result in him having to leave the country.

He used to meet my informant on this footpath in the 60's.


He wondered why he and the others had been hired by the government to advise them. The government turned down every recommended design in favour of the less safe and cheaper options. Don't that make you feel great.

His work would have been of great benefit to humanity.

It was hijacked.

No names. Personal.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Kester

The thing is, arson investigation is "sciencey", not science.

I'm not sure that's quite fair. Rather, there's some very bad investigators who have no scientific training (they're usually just senior firefighters) which is a recipe for disaster but the actual science of arson investigation seems legit.

a reply to: Kester

You don't publish work by sending your paper out to universities, you publish it in journals for all to see so i am highly skeptical of your claims and perception of how scientific research is conducted.

a reply to: GetHyped

I base my assertion that arson investigation is nothing but "sciencey" nonsense on the following:

www.firescientist.com...

Yes, there is some real science in there. Problem is, the real science requires an investigative industry to stop teaching nonsense. How many people have we put to death because we claim something is a science when it is not?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A fire under laboratory conditions could still produce surprises.
It would be easier to analyse accurately than a fire in real world conditions with all the unknown variations.
Which would be virtually impossible.

You've won me over.
Arson investigation is sciencey.

Willingham is an eye-opener.

Using my knowledge of stove design and fires I can see how the Bradford fire could spread with extraordinary speed once established. But that first bit of seating burning looks to have caught much too fast. And the investigation is documented as having been rushed, relevant photographs notable by their elusiveness, although they were known to have been taken.

Today is the anniversary and the only day we are welcome to discuss and commemorate this disaster.
For the rest of the year no discussion, no merchandise, no fancy sponsored walks or whatever.
The survivors are disturbed by the 'branding' of the disaster.
They want us to shut up and contribute to the burns unit privately and without fuss if we really want to make a difference.

I hope some experienced fire investigators will take a fresh look and perhaps write a piece for us to read next year.

One thing I know. Nasty types like to arrange for someone else to take the blame. Like spreading accelerant where one of the many cigarettes will fall onto it.

a reply to: GetHyped

Well strictly speaking you don't publish it, they do. And there's the weakness. Editors of journals are in a position to determine what gets reviewed by 'trustworthy' sources. In my experience editors are sometimes spooks or spook controlled assets. Science was hijacked long ago.

How many relevant journals were linked to universities in those days? The story I'm told is every university. That statement doesn't exclude journals. Perhaps he posted to other addresses as well but the universities were what stuck in my friends memory. And the lack of a single response.

Many of these kind of people are still terribly naive about spies and manipulation such as stealing papers in the post. Obviously this was long, long before the internet.

My perception of how scientific research is conducted is based on growing up surrounded by scientists.