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: NC Law Review on Fire Investigation
Posted by:
J L Mazerat (IP Logged)
Date: September 11, 2020 06:55PM
I am not going to say that the more knowledge a person has does not give him an advantage. I think a person should pick something to do with his profession and do self-learning of that topic. A while back I made the decision that I wanted to know more about the ignition of gases. One of my first encounters was when I had a fire after Hurricane Katrina where there was propane gas in the FEMA trailers that was not being detected by the detector at the floor and people were not smelling the gas. At each of my fires the source of ignition was midway between the floor and ceiling. After conducting my own research I found that how the propane was being discharged into the atmosphere had a direct relationship as to where it would be found in the compartment and this location was not necessarily the floor. WOW, all my classes had taught me that it was heavier than air and would be found at the floor. I am not a chemist or a gas expert and probably not be able to define all the reason the gas was staying suspended in the air and not falling to the floor as soon as it was released but I could show the documentation and testing that supported my opinion. Then there was the question as to why the persons were not smelling the gas. The gas was checked at the station where the bottles were filled and it was found to have the proper amount of odor. I started looking at the individuals involved and came up with a working hypothesis as to why they were not detecting the odor. I even published a paper on the subject. I am not a doctor and if you asked me to identify all the parts of the nose that allows us to detect odors I could not do it but what I did have was medial research that supported my hypothesis. Of course there was a curve ball sent my way as to my hypothesis when an incident took place where the person did not fit onto the conditions for my hypothesis. I took it on my self to conduct additional research and found the new empty propane tanks that were being delivered with the trainless had never been cured. Any one that does cooking with cast iron knows what I am talking about. As it turns out I came up with the hypothesis that the steel of the cylinders was absorbing the odor and leaving the propane with little to no odor. As I said I am not a chemist and could not explain the reasons for this but I could show after testing to level of odorant in the bottle at the moment it was filled and then testing it again a week after that the amount in the gas had been greatly reduced. Should my testimony been restricted because I could not list the parts of the human nose or because I did not know the chemical reasons why the metal was absorbing odorant?
This is just a simple personal example dealing with me.
Jim Mazerat
Forensic Investigations Group