Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Acceptable Level of Certainty
Posted by: jgmcfps (IP Logged)
Date: February 11, 2007 08:16AM
Jim Mazerat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question after this explanation would be:
>
> 1. Why do you not use the latest edition of 921? We do use the most current edition for our analysis
>
> 2. Is it not true that the current edition of 921
> only has two levels of certainty? Correct
>
> 3. Is it not true the current edition of 921 no
> longer uses the term conclusive? Correct
>
> 4. What is the better edition of 921, the one you
> are using or the latest edition? Current editon reflects the state of the art at the time.
>
> I have no problem with the problem solving process
> as you have listed it other than it no longer is
> what is suggested by 921. Do you know why the 921
> committee decided to drop two of the four level of
> certainty that were listed in the 1998 edition.
I do not know why the committee choose to drop two of the levels. We believe that use of the four levels (which originated with the American Academy of Forsenic Sciences - this is documented in earlier edtions), more clearly and accurately reflect the levels of confidence. I do not believe that the continued use of the four levels is in any way contrary to the spirit and intent of NFPA 921.
There are other firms (individuals) who still use "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and "to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty".
James G. Munger, PhD, FIFireE, CFPS
www.qdotengineering.com
W3NFA
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question after this explanation would be:
>
> 1. Why do you not use the latest edition of 921? We do use the most current edition for our analysis
>
> 2. Is it not true that the current edition of 921
> only has two levels of certainty? Correct
>
> 3. Is it not true the current edition of 921 no
> longer uses the term conclusive? Correct
>
> 4. What is the better edition of 921, the one you
> are using or the latest edition? Current editon reflects the state of the art at the time.
>
> I have no problem with the problem solving process
> as you have listed it other than it no longer is
> what is suggested by 921. Do you know why the 921
> committee decided to drop two of the four level of
> certainty that were listed in the 1998 edition.
I do not know why the committee choose to drop two of the levels. We believe that use of the four levels (which originated with the American Academy of Forsenic Sciences - this is documented in earlier edtions), more clearly and accurately reflect the levels of confidence. I do not believe that the continued use of the four levels is in any way contrary to the spirit and intent of NFPA 921.
There are other firms (individuals) who still use "to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty" and "to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty".
James G. Munger, PhD, FIFireE, CFPS
www.qdotengineering.com
W3NFA
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.