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: ILA
Posted by:
MIKE (IP Logged)
Date: May 27, 2007 01:31PM
I know several of us have used ILA with good results and at least one prominent educational organization still touts it in some of their courses. In the interest of fairness and because I don't have the background to engage in a dialog about ILA, I wrote to John and asked him about the papers that were written. I am posting his response without comment as he asked me to do:
Mike,
What is amazing is that all of these tests and articles used the outdated and obsolete formula for ILA, not the new formula. The authors don't mention that fact. One of these authors was told of the modifications and new formula before his first article was written. He was again informed, before his second article was written, but he failed to mention that fact. He also failed to mention, not just to me, but also to one of my collaborators, that he was writing a negative article about ILA. Essentially, he failed to write that he was told of the changes we had made to ILA.
The Manual of ILA clearly states that absorption is the primary function of ILA and the "indication" aspects of ILA are secondary and only good for high concentrations of ignitable liquids and not for low ppm. That is also never mentioned in any of these articles. Obviously, the "scientific" testers don't read the manual. The manual clearly states that nothing is better than a well-trained canine, but not everyone can have a dog on every fire scene, which is why ILA was developed.
I wonder how these people can present themselves as scientists when they ignore the facts and manipulate the truth. Incidentally, kitty litter acts in a hydrophilic manner, and in consideration of the fact that most fire scenes are wet, once water is absorbed, ignitable liquid residues are repelled. Duh!
For the record, I gave up on the ILA project for several reasons:
1) It has become too difficult to get the appropriate raw materials.
2) I ran out of time, money, and tolerance of mean spirited people.
3) I need to move on to other things, where creating some good may be accepted by cooperative people.
4) I can't find anyone crazy or suicidal enough to take over the project for me.
In fire investigation, we have too many people that I would describe as what comes out of the south end of a northbound chicken!
Later,
John
Mike Carlson, CFI, CFEI, CVFI, CATI, CPP,
Chicago, Il