The word scientific to me is the exhibiting of a method or principle of science. Science to me is the knowledge obtained through the scientific method. If we are to say that this can take place during a fire, than should there be some research conducted to support that hypothesis. If there is experimentation over 10 years that does not support the hypothesis then what is the creditability of the hypothesis?

I was questioning the fact that aerosol case can puncture firewalls. I am curious where you obtained this information. In the K-Mart fire they talk of them shooting through openings in the firewall and through openings in the roof but never say one penetrated the firewall.

I looked at the references you posted, and I may have missed the specific one that has the information on rocketing aerosols starting secondary fires. All I am going by is the scientific method in that a hypothesis was developed; testing was conducted to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. The results of the testing was published and subjected to peer review. Based on this methodology a paper of findings and articles describing the findings were published in numerous publications. None of these support the contention suggested. What I was asking was is there more data available than I have discovered.

The question asked by Mr. Lentini was very general and not specific as to the type and classification of the aerosol in question. Others may read some of the responses to his question and assume all aerosols would behave the same way. There is no question that where the failure of an aerosol takes place, depending on its contents of the aerosol, there is an increase in the heat being released, and it is this increase that can cause other combustibles in the area to ignite. That is not the question. The question is how far an aerosol container can travel before the ignitable contents are consumed. There are many factors needing to be analyzed before this determination can be made. We can not lump all aerosol into one category. First the type and amount of contents need to be determined to properly classify the aerosol and make a determination as to its potential hazard. Then the location of the failure and the size of the opening must be addressed.

I would ask, if there was sufficient heat to cause a failure of the aerosol container would not ignition take place at the container? If this were to take place how much fuel would remain to reach the blanket. In the scenario you suggest from the video there would need to be a mechanical failure of the container, unrelated to the fire which is taking place.

I would suggest, based on the classification listings, the hazards from aerosol has been greatly reduced over the years. Many communities, in the mid 1980’s, identified aerosol products as Class 1A flammable liquids, this is not the case today. Something must have been done by the manufacturers to reduce the hazard.

I do not take any information on face value. In the same way, I do not discount information produced by associations because the association may have an interest in the out come. What I have done with aerosols and other topics is test their hypothesis by independently reviewing all data available and reaching my own conclusion. How much of the data produced in the documents produced by the National Fire Protection Association is developed by manufacturers and their associations? I think if you look at most of the NFPA committees you will find them staffed with a large number of manufacturers or associations directly related to the manufacturing of a product.

I agree, that the difference between "flammable liquid" and "combustible liquid" becomes less important in aerosol cans when a can ruptures. What is important is the water content. It is this water content that is used in the classification process. Factory has assigned three classifications, these being Levels I, II, and III. If a product contains more that 75% water it is a Level I. Containers with water-miscible liquids are classified as Level II. Some non water-miscible liquids are classified as Level II and other non water-miscible are classified as level III.

Just because an aerosol container is found is not in itself sufficient data to say it had the potential to cause a secondary fire. A complete evaluation of all data must be completed before a hypothesis is formed.