Fire Investigation Discussion - Assignment Example

Assignment briefing Name: Date: University Affiliation Assignment briefing 1. With reference to the fire investigation books explain the distinction between a smoke horizon and a heat horizon. And explain how the two horizons could be evaluated. What could interfere with the horizon and would be a help or hindrance to the investigation. a. Smoke horizon It is a layer of smoke that is usually on the upper atmosphere caused temperature inversion at the lower levels of the atmospheres. A visible layer can thus be observed form the earth surface when looking towards the sky horizon. The smoke layer usually provides coverage to the real horizon inhibiting its clear visibility. (Bryan, J. 1995). Figure 1: image of a smoke horizon When evaluating the smoke horizon a variety of activities are usually carried out to come up with justifiable data after evaluation. Air quality monitoring allows use of a special sensor to detect the various components of the air as per the required data. Compliance law monitoring is measure put in place to be able to guard the extent to which human activities pollute the environment . Some of the questions being asked in this process are the laws set in place being effectively implemented. Assessing the economic impact of air quality to the society is also very crucial does the increased industrial activity affect the environment and what of the employment opportunities that are created. (Bryan, J. 1995). Heat horizon This is hot air filled layer found above the surface of the earth mainly caused by air that has been extremely heated to high temperatures . A layer of heated air is seen from the earth surface on the horizon. This forms a heat wave like appearance just above the earth surface . (Bryan, J. 1995). Figure 2: image of a heat horizon One of the methods that is usually employed in evaluation of heat wave is the use of mathematical temperature models that help to know the amount of heat in the atmosphere at any given time. The following is an example of a mathematical model Where Tap refers to the apparent temperature,  Tair refers to the air temperature  Tdewpt refers to the dew point temperatures located at a distance of 2 meters in degrees Celsius When simulating the temperature selection is done by dividing it through an equal range of intervals giving more reliable and precise data values. (Bryan, J. 1995). The second way of evaluation is the studying effect of the heat waves on the agricultural sector output a lot of heat destroys plants cell structure reducing their output since they will be dying from lack of food. The third way through which evaluation can be achieved is by looking at the socio economic behavior of people in the area at high temperatures they are very inactive little economic activities taking place. (Bryan, J. 1995). 2. What is a chain of evidence and why is it important in a fire investigation Proved and verified basis that the cause of fire has been established. Some of the cases can be used as a proof to any fire investigation that has occurred. These can be an object or item that has been found at the fire scene or linked with what is anticipated to have been the cause of the fire. (Proulx, G. 1995). Chain of evidence helps to easily identify what has been the cause of a given fire. These evidences can be classified into three main categories which include: direct evidence involves evidence that has something to do with the five human senses; smell, sight, taste sound. For example when one testifies an explosive being dropped into a building and sees the building catch fire: indirect evidence is the other type of evidence essential in giving support to some elements in the investigation but cannot by their own means give solid proof . The third type of evidence is the physical/real evidence: it’s based on what a person has witnessed on the fire scene. (Proulx, G. 1995). During collection of a chain of evidence there are five important things which one will have to keep in mind. One has to gather and poses the evidence in a legal way, with high level of precision and protection. The evidence should be owned by someone who found it (Proulx, G. 1995). 3. How could it be possible that a room with two apparent sources of ignition could possibly not be the work of an arsonist? An arsonist is a person who intentionally puts on a fire with a destructive motive. The action is defined as an arsenic attack. In most cases if a fire is caused by an arsonist the evidence provided will give a clear intention of the motive of the person behind which was to either destroy property or life. ( Horasan et al 1994). Before coming to conclusion of the fire being an arsonist attack there has to be evidence of the intentions for instance if the person had a fire accelerator despite the fire having two major causes of ignition. If it was well planned the fire should originate from the low level side of building to cover a wider area. If in any case a claimed arsonist attack had fire from top or middle of the building then it can’t be concluded it was an arsonist behind the attack.. (Horasan et al 1994) The other way to conclude on such a thing is by looking at any traces of accelerators of the fire used for instance if petrol is found then it provides clear evidence of the cruel intentions of the person put on the fire. So incase the fire has a number of sources of ignition with no trace of an accelerant then we can as well conclude it’s not caused by an arsonist. Since he would want more damage to be done by the fire and the only way is to use an accelerant as it brings more damage within the shortest time possible. (Horasan et al 1994) 4. The fire investigation text book “scientific investigation of fire investigation” second edition by john letini contains many case studies in which the author has given a second opinion about the origin and cause of fire. Pick any of these cases and write a critic giving emphasis on the examples of errors and poor decision making by the original fire investigators. From the first investigation team they had concluded that the fire was as a result of an arsonists attack. This was mainly based on the gasoline that was found in the container at the yard close to where the fire had occurred. However there were several doubts about this investigation which was done since many issues arose with no satisfactory answer being provided. (John 2000) The gasoline was found at the back of an old malfunctioning car in the yard. In real sense any smart person who does not want to expose what he has been doing cannot just place somewhere like that gasoline since when investigators come it’s the first point of checking for any evidence, as anyone would check the back of such a vehicle for any important material to be used as evidence. (John 2000) It also happens that the quality of the gasoline claimed to be found in the jug was of the same type as that in the mower. How can it not be possible that the gardener poured the gasoline in the mower and left some in the jag where he placed it in the back of the car for future use. Instead this team assumes this as a possible reason the jug of gasoline was found in the back of the car. Since the car is in the yard for a gardener he may have found it more convenient place to store for future use in the mower. This brings more doubts on the investigation credibility. (John 2000) The motive of the person claimed to be responsible for the fire is questionnable. This is so because in this incident he is claimed to have used some of the accelerant and left the remaining at a place it could be easily found. The main question is if it was with intention of destroying property and life why would all the claimed gasoline as accelerant be fully used to cause more damage instead they only used part of it. The more the accelerant used the more the damage but from this investigation the guy claimed to be responsible seemingly didn’t want to do a lot of damage. The highlighted shortfalls clearly indicate that the first investigation team had some lapses in findings and evaluation of data. This called for a second investigation team to try and seek the answers the first team had failed to do, as a result it led to nullification of findings from the first investigation team. (John 2000) REFERENCE 1. Brennan, P. (1997). ‘evaluation of smoke horizon , Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium, Yuji Hasemi (ed.), World Congress Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Bryan, J. (1995). ‘Behavioral response in fire investigation ’, SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection and investigation Engineering, 2nd edn. 3. Bryan, J. L. (1983). ‘An Examination and Analysis of the Dynamics of the Human Behavior’, the MGM Grand Hotel Fire, NFPA, Quincy, MA., USA. 4. Fahy, R. & Proulx, G. (1997). ‘smoke and heat horizon evaluation’, Fire investigation Science: Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium, Yuji Hasemi (ed.), World Congress Centre, Melbourne, Australia 713–24. 5. Horasan, M. & Bruck, D. (1994). ‘Investigation of causes of fire”, 4th International Symposium on Fire Safety and investigation Science Proceedings, ISFPA, Gaithersburg, MD, USA 715–26. 6. john letini (2000) “scientific investigation of fire investigation” second edition, ISFPA by pages 76-79 7. Jones B. K. & Hewitt A. J. (1986). ‘Leadership and Group Formation in High Rise Building Evacuations’, Fire Safety Science: Proceedings of the First International Symposium, Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Washington,DC, USA 513–22. 8. Pauls, J. (1996). ‘Evidence analysis , SFPE Handbook of Fire investigation, 2nd edn, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA.,USA. 9. Proulx, G. (1995). ‘Evidence obtaining and evaluation in fire incidents buildings’, Fire Safety Journal, 24 (3), 229–46. Read More