U.S. Fire Administration

Behavioral Mitigation of Smoking Fires FA-302/February 2006

U.S. Fire Administration

Mission Statement

As an entity of the Department of Homeland

Security, the mission of the USFA is to reduce

life and economic losses due to fire and

related emergencies, through leadership,

advocacy, coordination, and support.

We serve the Nation independently, in

coordination with other Federal agencies,

and in partnership with fire protection and

emergency service communities. With a

commitment to excellence, we provide

public education, training, technology, and

data initiatives.

HomelandSecurity

EME-2003-CA-0310

Behavioral Mitigation of Smoking FiresThrough Strategies Based on Statistical Analysis

HomelandSecurity

EME-2003-CA-0310

Behavioral Mitigation of Smoking FiresThrough Strategies Based on

Statistical Analysis

Final Project Report for EME-2003-CA-0310

John R. Hall, Jr.Marty Ahrens

Kimberly RohrSharon GamacheJudy Comoletti

National Fire Protection Association

February 2006

HomelandSecurity

�

Fires started by lighted tobacco products, princi-pally cigarettes, constitute the leading cause of

residential fire deaths. The U.S. FireAdministration(USFA)haspartneredwiththeNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)“toresearchwhattypesofbehav-iorscausesmokingfirefatalitiesanddevelopsoundrec-ommendations forbehavioralmitigation strategies toreducesmokingfirefatalitiesintheUnitedStates....”

Thescopeofthestudyincludedalllightedtobaccoproducts,butcigarettesaccountfornearlyallconsumptionandfires.Lightingimplementssuchasmatchesandlighterswerenotincluded.Mostfiresinvolvingtheseobjectsoccurduringincendiarismorfireplay,andonlyasmallfractionoccurintheprocessoflightingcigarettes.

Smoking-materialhomefiredeathsarealmostthreetimesaslikelyashomefiredeathscausedbyothermeanstoinvolveavictimwhowasclosetotheignition(29percentversus11percentin1994to1998).Fatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfiresare,therefore,lesslikelythanfatalvictimsofotherkindsoffirestobesavedbystrategiesandtechnologiesthatreactafterignition,i.e.,fireprotectiondevices.Formany,ifnotmost,ofthesevictims,thereisnosubstituteforprevention.

Smokersaremorelikelytohaveunrelatedimpairments,limitations,disabilities,orothercharacteristicsthatcaninterferewiththeirresponsetofire.Thiscanmeanamoreseriousinjuryforadefinedlevelofexposuretofire.

Themajorityofsmoking-materialhomestructurefiresandmorethantwo-thirdsofassociateddeathsinvolvetrash,mattresses,bedding,orupholsteredfurnitureasthefirstigniteditem.Bothmattressesandupholsteredfurniturehavebeenthesubjectofdecades-longrequirements,industry-basedorgovernment-based,respectively,toreduceignitabilitybycigarettes.Thelong-termimpactoftheseprogramscanbeseenintherisingpercentageoffatalhomestructuresmoking-materialfiresthatbeginwithignitionofsomethingotherthanupholsteredfurniture,mattresses,orbedding.Thatpercentage

Executive Summarywas15percentin1980to1982,20percentin1990to1992,and29percentin2000to2002.

Thecharacteristicsofaneffectiveashtrayhavebeendescribedbymanydifferenttermsinexistingeducationalmaterials,butsomeofthoseterms(e.g.,“large”)werejudgedtobebothvagueandpotentiallyinadequate.Anashtrayisintendedtoprovideasaferepositoryforasheswhileacigaretteisbeingsmokedandasafetemporaryrepositoryforashesandbuttsafteracigarettehasbeensmoked.Thiswillhappeniftheashtrayminimizes

• thelikelihoodofalitcigarettefallingoutoftheashtray(depthwasdeemedthemostimportantfeature);

• thelikelihoodoftheashtrayitselfoverturningandspillingashes,embers,andbuttsontopotentialcombustibles(“sturdy”wasdeemedthebestestablishedtermforwhatisneededinsuchanashtray);and

• thelikelihoodofahostilefireifashes,embers,orbuttsfalloutsidetheprotectedconfinesoftheashtray(asturdy,hard-to-ignitesurfacefortheashtraywasdeemedthebestwaytodescribewhatwasneeded).

Nearlyhalfofallsmoking-materialhomestructurefiresandroughlythree-fourthsofassociateddeathsinvolvefiresthatbegininthebedroom,livingroom,familyroom,orden.Mostfatalvictimswereasleepwhenfatallyinjuredbutmostfatalsmoking-materialhomestructurefiresdidnotbegininthebedroom.

Availabledatadonotpermitcalculationoftheriskoffatalcigarettefiresrelativetotimespentsmoking,distinguishingdifferentroomsofahome.Thereissomeindirectevidenceoftherelativesafetyofsmokingoutdoors.In1994to1998,inthewintermonthsofDecemberthroughFebruary,therateofdeathsper100reportedsmoking-materialhomestructurefireswasmuchhigher--4.9inDecemberthroughFebruaryand2.8intheothermonths,or75percenthigherinwinter.Winteriswhengoingoutdoorstosmokeismostdifficultand,therefore,leastlikelytohappen.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Thereissomeevidencethatamessageregardingwheretosmokewill,inmanycases,beseenasreinforcingestablishedhouseholdrules,ratherthanreinventingbehavior.

TwomajorFederal-governmentstudiesofthepotentialriskreductionfromareducedignition-strengthcigarettereachedthefollowingconclusions:

• Areducedignition-strengthcigaretteistechnicallyfeasible.

• Astandardtestofcigaretteignitionstrengthistechnicallyfeasible.

Thesmokerwhosesmokingmaterialsignitedthefireistheonlypersonpresentinjustoverhalfoffatalcigarettefires.Evenforthese54percentofcases,smokersmaynotlivealoneandmaybeinfluencedbyothersinthebehaviorsthatledtoignition.Inthe46percentofcaseswheresomeoneelseispresent,itwasnotknownwhetherthoseothershadcharacteristicsthatwouldaffecttheirabilitytoexertsuchinfluenceeffectively.

Onefatalvictiminfour(24percent)isnotthesmokerwhosecigarettestartedthefire.Therefore,ifothersarepresent,theyhavebothadirectandanindirectstakeintakingactiontopreventhostilefiresfromtakingplace.

Therelationshipsofthesevictimstothesmokersisusefultoknowbecauseitmaybearonthewillingnessandabilityoftheseotherstoserveas“watchers”forthesmokers,aswellasthewillingnessofthesmokerstoaccepthelporadvicefromtheseothers.

Ofthefatalvictimswhowerenotthesmokerswhosesmokingmaterialsignitedthefires:

• Thirty-fourpercentwerechildrenofthesmokers(thatis,thesmokersweretheparentsofthevictims,butsomeofthesevictimswerethemselvesadults).

• Twenty-fivepercentwereneighbors(oftenfromotherapartmentunitsinthesamebuilding)orfriendsofthesmokers.

• Fourteenpercentwerespousesorpartnersofthesmokers.

• Thirteenpercentwereparentsofthesmokers.

• Fourteenpercenthadotherrelationships(e.g.,sibling,nieceornephew,uncleoraunt,roommate,passerby).

Theprojectrecommendstheuseoffourgeneralmessages,twomorespecificmessagesforparticularaudiences,andaseventhmessagetobeusedwhenspaceortimepermit.Thefourgeneralmessagesare

If you smoke, smoke outside.

Wherever you smoke, use deep, sturdy ashtrays. Ashtrays should be set on something sturdy and hard to ignite, like an end table.

Before you throw out butts and ashes, make sure they are out, and dowsing in water or sand is the best way to do that.

Check under furniture cushions and in other places people smoke for cigarette butts that may have fallen out of sight.

Thetwospecificmessages:

Smoking should not be allowed in a home where oxygen is used.

If you smoke, choose fire-safe cigarettes. They are less likely to cause fires.

Andtheseventhmessage:

To prevent a deadly cigarette fire, you have to be alert. You won’t be if you are sleepy, have been drinking, or have taken medicine or other drugs.

ThesemessageshavebeenappliedtoexistingUSFAeducationalmaterials(seeAppendixE)andarebeingadoptedintoNFPAeducationalmessagesastheycomeupforroutinerevision.

TheprojecthasdevelopedtwoPowerPoint®presentations--oneforeducatorsandoneforsmokersandotherswhosebehaviorweseektochange--toimplementtherecommendededucationalmessagesandprovidephotographsforaddedclarity.(SeeAttachmentsIandII.)

���

Table of Contents

ExecutiveSummary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TableofContents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

TheU.S.Smoking-MaterialFireProblem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SizeandTrendsoftheFireProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

ThereIsNoSubstituteforPreventionWhenaVictimis “IntimateWithIgnition” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

CorrelatedCharacteristicsofSmokersMakeEffectiveResponsetoFire LessLikelyandSeriousConsequencesFromFireMoreLikely. . . . . . . . . . . 9

ImpairmentbyAlcoholorOtherDrugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

PhysicalHandicapsorLimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

MentalorEmotionalHandicapsorLimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

GenerallyPoorPre-ExistingHealth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

UseofMedicalOxygen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

EngaginginRiskyBehavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

SummaryofPointsonCorrelatedComplicatingCharacteristics . . . . . . 12

SummaryofFindingsonSmokerBehaviorsandRelatedStrategies . . . . . . . . 12

DecisiontoSmoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

WhatCigarettesIgnite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

ProductChoicesandtheControlofBurningCigarettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

WheretoSmoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

WhattoSmoke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

SmokerCharacteristicsRelatedtoProductChoiceBehaviors. . . . . . . . . . . 16

PresenceofOthersasaFactorinStrategyDesign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ConvertingResearchFindingsintoBehavioralStrategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

MakingBehaviorChangeMoreLikely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

WhatFactualEvidenceNeedstoAccompanytheEducationalMessage? . . . 19

�v Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

WhatDetailedGuidanceShouldAccompanytheEducationalMessage? . . . 20

WhatSideEffectsCouldBeofConcernfortheRecommendedStrategies? . . 20

KeepingMessagesShort,Simple,andClear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

WouldHumorousMessagesWorkinThisContext? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

NationalStrategiesforImplementationofReportFindings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

TrainingandEquippingtheEducators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

StandardizationofEducationalMessages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ImplementationofFindingsBeyondUSFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

FutureResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

AppendixA--CharacteristicsofDatabasesUsedinStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

AppendixB--AdditionalStatisticsonCharacteristicsoftheVictimsofSmoking-MaterialFiresRelatedtoVulnerability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

AppendixC--AdditionalInformationonSmokingandMedicalOxygen . . . . . . 51

AppendixD--AdditionalInformationonReduced-Ignition-StrengthCigarettes . 53

AppendixE--ImplementationofMitigationStrategiesIntoUSFAPublicFireSafetyEducationMaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

�

Firesstartedbylightedtobaccoproducts,principallycigarettes,constitutethe leadingcauseofresiden-

tialfiredeaths.TheU.S.FireAdministration(USFA)haspartneredwiththeNationalFireProtectionAssociation(NFPA)“to research what types of behaviors causesmokingfirefatalitiesanddevelopsoundrecommen-dations forbehavioralmitigation strategies to reducesmokingfirefatalitiesintheUnitedStates….”

Thescopeofthestudyincludedalllightedtobaccoproducts,butcigarettesaccountfornearlyallconsumptionandfires.Lightingimplementssuchasmatchesandlighterswerenotincluded.Mostfiresinvolvingtheseobjectsoccurduringincendiarismorfireplay.

Anextensiveliteraturereviewonbehaviorsrelatedtosmoking,ortofiresorfatalitiesduetosmoking-materialfireswasconductedtoprovidethebroadestpossiblefactbaseforrecommendations.Inaddition,datawerecollectedfrom:

• analysisofthe1980to2001U.S.smoking-materialfireproblem,usingTheNationalFireIncidentReportingSystem(NFIRS)nationalestimates;

• analysisofseveralhundred1997to1998fatalsmoking-materialfires,notnecessarilyrepresentativebutdocumentedingreaterdetailinNFPA’smajorfiresdatabasecalledtheFireIncidentDataOrganization(FIDO);

• analysisofotherriskfactorscorrelatedwithsmoking,basedontheU.S.CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention(CDC)BehavioralRiskFactordatabasefor2002.

ThetwodetailedfireincidentdatabasesusedintheseanalysesaredescribedbelowandinslightlymoredetailinAppendixA:

NFIRS: ThisUSFAdatabaseisthemostrepresentativenationalfiredatabase,providingdetailedinformationonindividualfiresandcasualties.Nearlyall

nationalestimatesofspecificaspectsoftheU.S.fireproblembeginwithNFIRS.AboutathirdofU.S.firedepartments--workingthroughtheirrespectiveStates--participateinNFIRS,whichreceivesreportsonanestimatedone-thirdtoone-halfofeachyear’sfires.TheNFPAandmostotherusersofNFIRScombineitwiththeNFPAsurveytoproducethebest“nationalestimates”ofthespecificcharacteristicsoftheNation’sfireproblem.

Someimportantcodinginformation,suchasthevictimlocationcode“intimatewithignition,”arenotcodingoptionsinNFIRSVersion5.0,whichappliesto1999andlaterdata.Therefore,patternanalysisinthisreportisdoneusing1994to1998datathroughout.

FIDO:ManyquestionsoftechnicalinterestrequirealevelofdetailbeyondthatavailablethroughNFIRS.Forthese,thebestapproachoftenistouseexploratorydatawithsufficientvalidateddetailtobeuseful,evenifitmaynotberepresentativeofoverallU.S.fireexperience.Thelargestsuchdatabase,excludingproprietaryinsurance-industrydatabases,isNFPA’sFIDO.In1997to1998,FIDOwassetuptoincludeallfatalfires.Forthisproject,datawereextractedfrom300qualified1997to1998incidents,withrecordson477individuals,including389deaths.

ThedevelopmentofrecommendedstandardmessagesandbehaviorswasaccomplishedbytheNFPAEducationalMessagingAdvisoryCommittee(EMAC),adiversegroupofeducationalexpertsrecentlyformedtoadvisetheNFPAoneducationalmessagingacrossthefullrangeoffireandlifesafetyeducationprograms.Theywereprovidedwithabriefingontheresultsofthisproject’sresearch.

TheprojectalsoincorporatedconceptsfromaHealthBeliefmodelwidelyusedinpublichealthresearchandinitiatives.Themodelisbuiltaroundsixgenericquestions:

Introduction

� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

1. How likely does the individual consider the kind of harm targeted by the strategy to be?

2. How serious does the individual consider the kind of harm targeted by the strategy to be?

3. How much benefit does the individual believe he/she would derive from a change in the targeted behavior?

4. What adverse side effects of a change in behavior are perceived as barriers by the target audience?

5. What cues to action are part of the strategy?

6. How confident is the target audience that behavior can be changed?

Finally,neartheendoftheproject,resultswereprovidedfromaparalleleffortbyHagerSharp,thepublicrelationsfirm,whichincludedafocusgroupreviewofcandidatemessagesrelatedtosmokerbehavior.HagerSharpobtainedinformationnoothersourcehadprovidedonthelikelyreceptivenessofsmokerstothetestedmessagesandothersimilarmessages.

A2005USFAstatisticalreport--Residential Smoking Fires and Casualties--iscompleteandavailableathttp://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i5.pdf.Itprovidesadditionalstatisticalmaterialonthesmokingfireproblem.

�

The U.S. Smoking-Material Fire Problem

Size and Trends of the Fire Problem

Smoking-materialstructurefiresandassociatedciviliandeathshavedeclinedsharplysince1980(Figure1),butsmokingmaterialsremaintheleadingcauseofstructurefiredeathsintheUnitedStates.Homesaccountformorethantwo-thirdsofsmoking-materialstructurefiresandmorethan90percentofsmoking-materialstructurefiredeaths.Littleislostbyfocusingonthehomeportionoftheproblem.(AnyunreferencedstatisticsarenationalestimatesfromNFIRSandtheNFPAsurvey.SeeAppendixBformoredetails.)

Note: ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Firesareestimatedtothenearesthundred.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofstructurefiresinwhichtheheatsourcewasunknown,andfiresinvolvingsmokingmaterialsoropenflamesofunknowntype.From1999on,confinedtrash-receptaclefires--withtheheatsourcenotreportedbecauseitisnotrequired--havebeenproportionallyallocatedbasedon1994to1998heat-sourcepatterns.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey

� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Note: ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Deathsareestimatedtothenearestten.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofstructurefiresinwhichtheheatsourcewasunknown,andfiresinvolvingsmokingmaterialsoropenflamesofunknowntype.From1999on,confinedtrash-receptacle--fireswiththeheatsourcenotreportedbecauseitisnotrequired--havebeenproportionallyallocatedbasedon1994to1998heat-sourcepatterns.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

Thenumberofsmoking-materialhomestructurefiresdeclinedby63percentfrom1980to2002(Figure2).Thenumberofsmoking-materialhomestructurefiredeathsdeclinedby60percentinthesameperiod.(SeeTablesB-1andB-2inAppendixBfordeathsandinjuriesbyageandsex.)

Morethanhalfofthedeclinemaybeattributedtodeclinesincigaretteconsumption.Thenumberofcigarettesconsumedfellby28percentfrom1987to2002.*Nearlyallsmoking-materialfiresandlossesinvolvecigarettes.

*For1987and1988data,JohnC.Maxwell,Jr.,The Maxwell Consumer Report: 1988 Year-End Sales Estimates for the Cigarette Industry,Richmond,Virginia:WheatFirstSecurities,January27,1989;for1994topresent,TomCapehart,Tobacco Outlook,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,www.ers.usda.gov,October6,2003;andfor1989to1993,earlierreportsintheTobacco Situation and Outlook Reportseries.

�U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

There Is No Substitute for Prevention When a Victim is “Intimate With Ignition”

Smokealarms,sprinklers,andcompartmentationbarriersallrequiretimeafterignitiontobeeffective.Foravictimrecordedas“intimatewithignition,”thefirebeginssoclosetohimorherthatitisverydifficulttosurvivelongenoughforactiveorpassivefireprotectiontosavehimorher.

From1994through1998,smoking-materialhomefiredeathswerealmostthreetimesaslikelyasother-causehomefiredeathstoinvolveavictimintimate

withignition(29percentversus11percent).(SeeTableB-3inAppendixB.)

Beingintimatewithignitiongivesapersonminimaltimetoreacteffectivelytoathreateningfire,andvariousconditionsreduceaperson’sabilitytousewhatevertimeheorshehas.Themostcommonfatal-victimcharacteristicwiththiseffectissleeping(Figure3).Smokingranksfirstamongthe12leadingcausesoffireinhomefiredeaths(1994to1998)with23percent.Ifyouspecifythatthevictimwassleepingbeforeinjury,thisrisesto27percent.(SeeTableB-4inAppendixB.)

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomesmoking-materialstructurefiredeathsinwhichthevictim’sconditionbeforeinjurywasunknown.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Theheightenedriskassociatedwithbeingintimatewithignitioncanbecompoundedbycertainconditions,activities,orothercharacteristics.Forexample,ofthesmoking-materialhome-firefatalvictimswhowereintimatewithignition,nearlyhalfwereasleepbeforeinjury(45percent)andmostoftherestwerephysicallyormentallyhandicappedorimpairedbyalcoholorotherdrugs(44percent).(SeeTableB-5inAppendixB.)Beingasleepcompoundstheriskfrombeingclosetothefire,andhavingspecificage-relatedlimitations,disabilities,orimpairmentscompoundsthatriskevenmore.Forallsmoking-materialhome-firefatalvictims,roughlysix-tenths(58percent)wereasleepbeforeinjuryand

roughlythree-tenths(29percent)werephysicallyormentallyhandicappedorimpairedbyalcoholorotherdrugs.(SeeTableB-6inAppendixB.)Bothpercentsarehigherthanforother-causefiredeaths.

Putanotherway,victimsoffatalsmoking-materialfiresarelesslikelytohavebeenintimatewithignitioniftheywereawakeandunimpaired(26percent)orasleep(23percent)thaniftheyhadadisability(50percentforphysicalhandicap,57percentformentalhandicap),wererestrained(44percent),wereimpairedbyalcoholorotherdrugs(40percent),orhadthephysicalandmentallimitationsassociatedwitholdage(34percent)(Figure4).

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomesmoking-materialstructurefiredeaths,foreachvictimconditionbeforeinjury,inwhichthevictimlocationwasunknown.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Thelinkbetweensmokingandsleepingisevenstrongerifthefirestartedbecausesomeonefellasleepwhenheorsheshouldhavebeensupervisingaheatsource.Whenignitionfactorwascodedasfallingasleep,three-fourthsofthefatalhomefiresin1994to1998weresmoking-materialfires.(SeeTableB-4inAppendixB.)(Themajorityoftherestwerecookingfires.)Andwhenfallingasleepisthereasonafirestarted,itisnotsurprisingifthesmokerisintimatewiththatignitionandatveryhighriskoffatalinjury.Forsmoking-materialhomefireswherefallingasleepwascodedastheignitionfactor,41percentoffatalvictimswereintimatewithignition,comparedto29percentoffatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfiresgenerallyand23percentofallsleepingfatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfires.(SeeFigureB-1inAppendixB.)

Asdiscussed,afirethatbeginsveryclosetoapersonrequiresverylittletimetogrowlargeenoughtocauseafatalinjury,unlesstheignitedmaterialsaredesignedtoburnslowly.Thereisnocompartmentationseparatingpersonfromfire,socompartmentationdoesnothelp.Evenifasmokealarmshouldactivatebeforeapersonisfatallyinjured,thestatisticsjustpresentedshow44percentoffatalintimate-with-ignitionvictimshavesomeseriouscondition--adisabilityorimpairment--thatwouldmakeasuccessfulescapeattemptunlikelyintheveryshorttimeavailable.Inaddition,inordertoactivate,afiresprinklerrequiresmoreseverefireconditionsattheceilingthanasmokealarmdoes.Asaresult,eventhoughthesprinklerwillprovidemoredirectandimmediateprotection,notrequiringanyactionontheoccupant’sparttosavehimselforherself,itisdoubtfulthatanintimate-with-ignitionvictimwillbesavedbyasprinkler.

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomesmoking-materialstructurefireswithitemfirstignitedunknown.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

However,onepossibleexceptiontotheseeminginevitabilityoffatalinjurywhenfirebeginsclosetothepersoniswhenthefireinvolvesmaterialsthataredesignedtoburnslowly.Thesematerials,suchasslower-burningupholsteredfurnitureormattresses,allowmoretimeforsometypeofprotectiveactiontobetaken,despitethecloseproximityofafiretoapotentialvictim.

Mostfatalsmoking-materialhomefiresbeginwithignitionofupholsteredfurniture,amattressorbedding,orclothing(Figure5).Theseitemsaccountfor80percentofallsmoking-materialhomefiredeathsand85percentofsuchdeathswhenthevictimisintimatewithignition.(SeeTableB-7inAppendixB.)Withinthesegroups,therelativeimportanceofclothingandmattressorbeddingisgreaterfortheintimate-with-ignitionvictimsthanforallvictims.

Sincethe1960’s,therehavebeenregulationsorindustryprogramsdesignedtoprovidebetterignitionresistancetocigarettesandslowerfiredevelopment

forupholsteredfurnitureandmattresses.Asonemightexpect,theshareofsmoking-materialhomefiredeathsinvolvinginitialignitionofupholsteredfurniture,mattress,orbeddinghasdeclinedfromfiveoutofsixintheearly1980’stothreeoutoffourinthelate1990’s.(SeeTableB-8inAppendixB.)Theseinitiativesarepartofthereasonforthedeclineinoverallsmoking-materialhomefiredeaths.

Thelargestshareoffatalhomesmoking-materialfirevictimsintimatewithignitionareinthelivingroom,familyroom,orden(44percent)comparedwiththebedroom(42percent),althoughthebedroomshareislargerthanforallhomesmoking-materialfiredeaths(42percentversus36percent).Notealsothatthekitchenshareislargerforintimate-with-ignitionfiredeaths,suggestingthatcigarettesarebeingdroppedonthevictim’sclothingoutsidethebedroom(Figure6).

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomesmoking-materialstructurefiresinwhichareaoffireoriginunknown.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

From1994to1998,fatalvictimsofsmoking-relatedhomefireswhoseactivitywheninjuredwassleepingwereroughly10timesaslikelyassleepingvictimsoffiresduetoothercausestobeintimatewithignition(30percentversus3percent).(SeeTableB-9inAppendixB.)(The30percentforvictimswhoseactivitywheninjuredwassleepingdiffersfromthe23percentcitedearlierforvictimswhoseconditionbeforeinjurywassleeping.)

Allofthesefindingssupportthegeneralconclusionthatfatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfiresarelesslikelythanfatalvictimsofotherkindsoffirestobesavedbystrategiesandtechnologiesthatreactafterignition,i.e.,fireprotectionprovisions.Formanyifnotmostofthesevictims,thereisnosubstituteforprevention.

Correlated Characteristics of Smokers Make Effective Response to Fire Less Likely and Serious Consequences From Fire More Likely

Smokersingeneral,smokerswhohavefires,andsmokerswhoarefatallyinjuredinfires,allaremorelikelytohaveunrelatedimpairments,limitations,disabilities,orothercharacteristicsthatcaninterferewiththeirresponsetofireorcanresultinamoreseriousinjuryforadefinedlevelofexposuretofireeffects.(SeeTablesB-10andB-11inAppendixBformorestatisticsonthesecharacteristics.)

Thesecharacteristicsdonotpointtoparticularsmokerbehaviorsthatshouldbemodifiedonthegroundsofreducingriskoffiredeath.However,theyallpointtobehaviorsthat,ifmodified,wouldresultinlessriskofharm.Inaddition,allofthesecharacteristicsincreasetheneedforsomemoreeffectivemeansofavoidingcigarettefiresandassociatedcasualties.

Impairment by Alcohol or Other Drugs• AccordingtoNFIRSnationalestimatesfor1994

to1998,fatalvictimsofhomesmoking-materialfiresaremorelikelythanvictimsofotherfatalhomefirestobeimpairedbyalcoholorotherdrugs(15percentversus7percent).(SeeTableB-6inAppendixB.)ItisknownthatNFIRStendstounder-reportalcoholanddrugimpairment.

• Threespecialstudies,designedtouseblood-alcoholteststoprovideamorecompleteandaccurateestimateofalcoholimpairmentinfatalfirevictims,consistentlyfoundmuchhigherratesofalcoholinvolvementinvictimsoffiresingeneralandinsmoking-relatedfiresinparticular.Theycitedalcoholasafactorinsmoking-relatedfiredeathsinalmosthalfthedeathsinLondon,UK,in1996to2000;almosthalfthedeathsinTallahassee,FL,in1983to1994;and62percentofthedeathsinMinnesotain1996to2002.1,2,3

• Fatalvictimswhowerealsothesmokerswhosecigarettesstartedthefiresaremuchmorelikelytohavebeenimpairedthanfatalvictimswhowerenotthosesmokers.AccordingtoFIDO,47percentofthedeathsofsmokerswhosesmokingmaterialignitedthefireinvolvedalcoholorotherdruguseasafactor.Specifically,thosedeathsconsistedof41percentalcoholonly,3percentotherdrugsonly,and3percentalcoholandotherdrugs.Alcoholorotherdrugusewascitedfor10percentofthenonsmokerdeaths,andallwerealcohol-only.(TablesB-12toB-15inAppendixBcontainalistingoftalliesoftheFIDOcasesbycombinationsofcharacteristics.TableB-14hastheparticularlistingsusedtocalculatethesepercentages.)

• Whilealcoholandotherdrugscanhaveastrongsoporificeffect(i.e.,causingdrowsiness),manyfatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfiresappeartohavebeendrowsyevenapartfromtheeffectsofalcohol.AccordingtoFIDO(seeTableB-14inAppendixB),26percentofsmokerdeathsinvolvedalcoholandevidenceofsleepinessindependentofalcoholeffects,asdid6percentofnonsmokerdeaths.

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedasthosewhohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohaveconsumedfiveormorealcoholicdrinksatoneoccasion(29percentversus19percent).Thesesmokersalsoaveragedonemoredrinkperoccasionthannonsmokers(3.72versus2.78drinksperoccasion).Thesestatisticsindicatethatsmokersaremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavealcohol-impairedjudgmentandabilitywhentheydrink.

�0 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokerswereslightlylesslikelythannonsmokerstohavehadmorethanfivedrinksonanoccasion(40percentversus41percent),buttheystillaveraged1/3to1/2moredrinksperoccasionthannonsmokers(4.76versus4.34drinksperoccasion).

Physical Handicaps or Limitations• In1994to1998,accordingtoNFIRSnational

estimates,fatalvictimsofhomesmoking-materialfiresweremorelikelythanvictimsofotherfatalhomefirestobephysicallyhandicapped(13percentversus7percent),butlesslikelytohavethephysicalandmentallimitationsassociatedwitholdage(2percentversus3percent).(SeeTableB-6inAppendixB.)Untilrecently,however,firedepartmentscouldnotreportmultipleconditionsofvictimstoNFIRS.Asaresult,theextentofthesedisabilitiesandage-relatedlimitationsmostlikelyareunderstated.

• AccordingtoFIDO(seeTableB-14inAppendixB),30percentofsmokerdeathsinvolvedphysicaldisabilitiesnotrelatedtoageorphysicallimitationsrelatedtoage.Specifically,thesedeathsconsistedof15percentphysicaldisabilitiesonlyand15percentphysicallimitationsonly.Asimilar28percentofnonsmokerdeathsinvolvedthesedisabilitiesandlimitations.Specifically,nonsmokerdeathsconsistedof5percentphysicaldisabilitiesonly,22percentphysicallimitationsduetoageonly,and1percentbothphysicaldisabilitiesandage-relatedphysicallimitations.

• A2001studyofteenagersfound31percentofthosewhoweremobility-impairedsmokedcomparedto20percentofacomparisongroupwithouthandicapsorlimitations.4

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokerswhohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavethefollowingpotentiallymobility-relatedphysicalhandicapsorlimitations:

Handicap/Limitation Smoker Nonsmoker

Ever told you have arthritis 35.0% 27.9%

Activity limitation due to physical, mental, or emotional problems 21.1% 14.3%

Limitations due to arthritis or other joint symptoms 30.1% 25.7%

Never exercised in the past month 27.7% 23.3%

Physical health not good for at least one day in the past 30 days 36.1% 32.0%

Health problems that require the use of special equipment 7.5% 5.7%

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavethefollowingphysicalhandicapsorlimitations:

Handicap/Limitation Smoker Nonsmoker

Ever told you have arthritis 31.1% 26.7%

Activity limitation due to physical, mental, or emotional problems 21.3% 17.6%

Limitations due to arthritis or other joint symptoms 31.7% 29.9%

Never exercised in the past month 34.5% 22.7%

Physical health not good for at least one day in the past 30 days 38.8% 38.2%

Health problems that require the use of special equipment 6.1% 5.8%

Mental or Emotional Handicaps or Limitations• In1994to1998,accordingtoNFIRSnational

estimates,fatalvictimsofhomesmoking-materialfireswerelesslikelythanvictimsofotherhomefatalfirestobementallyhandicapped(1percentversus2percent)ortohavethephysicalandmentallimitationsassociatedwitholdage(2percentversus3percent).(SeeTableB-6inAppendixB.)Untilrecently,however,firedepartmentscouldnotreportmultipleconditionsofvictimstoNFIRS.Asaresult,theextentofdisabilitiesandage-relatedlimitationsmostlikelyareunderstated.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

• AccordingtoFIDO(seeTableB-14inAppendixB),3percentofsmokerdeathsinvolvedmentalhandicapsnotrelatedtoageormentallimitationsrelatedtoage.Specifically,thesedeathsconsistedof2percentmentaldisabilitiesonlyand1percentmentallimitationsonly.Asimilar4percentofnonsmokerdeathsinvolvedthesehandicapsorlimitations.Specifically,thesenonsmokerdeathsconsistedof1percentmentaldisabilitiesonlyand3percentmentallimitationsduetoageonly.

• A2001studyofteenagersfound33percentofthosewhowereemotionallydisabledand27percentofthosewhowerelearning-disabledsmokedcomparedto20percentofacomparisongroupwithouthandicapsorlimitations.4

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedasthosewhohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstoreportthattheirmentalhealthhadnotbeengoodforatleast1dayinthepast30days(33.5percentversus29.3percent).

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstoreportthattheirmentalhealthhadnotbeengoodforatleast1dayinthepast30days(41.1percentversus39.8percent).

Generally Poor Pre-Existing Health• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedasthose

whohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavethefollowingphysicalconditionsthatcouldmakethemmoresusceptibletoharmfromadefinedexposuretofireeffects:

Physical Condition Smoker Nonsmoker

High blood cholesterol 37.1% 31.0%

Physical health not good for at least 1 day in past 30 36.1% 32.0%

High blood pressure 30.0% 26.5%

Asthma 13.0% 11.1%

Diabetes 8.3% 6.9%

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavethefollowingphysicalconditionsthatcouldmakethemmoresusceptibletoharmfromadefinedexposuretofireeffects:

Physical Condition Smoker Nonsmoker

High blood cholesterol 32.1% 27.6%

Physical health not good for at least 1 day in past 30 38.8% 38.2%

High blood pressure 23.2% 20.6%

Asthma 13.0% 13.9%

Diabetes 5.8% 5.6%

Use of Medical Oxygen• Multiplestudiesdocumentgrowingrecognitionof

specialproblemsposedbypeoplewhocontinuetosmokewhileundertreatmentwithmedicaloxygen.Forexample,fromMarch3,1999,toNovember30,2000,12oxygen-therapyfiresinPhiladelphiacausedthreedeathsandinjuredsevenothers.Inaddition,inaNovember2003safetybrochure,theMassachusettsOfficeoftheStateFireMarshalreportedthat“Since1997,16peoplehavediedand20otherindividualshavesufferedsevereburnsorsmokeinhalationinfiresinvolvingpeoplewhoweresmokingwhileusinghomeoxygensystems.”(SeeAppendixCforamoredetailedreviewofthesestudiesandtheirfindings.)

• Mostongoingfireincidentdatabasesdonotprovideforreportingofmedicaloxygenasafactor.However,datacontainedinFIDO(seeTableB-14inAppendixB)revealedthat7percentoffatalvictimswhowerethesmokerswhosesmokingmaterialignitedthefirewereundertreatmentwithmedicaloxygen.

Engaging in Risky Behavior• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedasthosewho

havesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstonotalwayshaveusedaseatbeltwhendrivingorriding(25.5percentversus19.7percent).Inaddition,thesesmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavedrivenafterdrinking(4.4percentversus2.9percent).

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

• AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavenotalwaysusedaseatbeltwhendrivingorriding(30.4percentversus25.4percent).However,thesesmokerswereless likelythannonsmokerstohavedrivenafterdrinking(5.8percentversus6.8percent).

Summary of Points on Correlated Complicating Characteristics

Manyofthesecharacteristicsmakeitmoredifficultandlesslikelythatsmokerbehaviorcanbemodifiedeffectivelytoimprovesafety.Forexample,apersonimpairedbydrugsoralcoholprobablyislesslikelytoacteffectivelyinaccordancewithlearnedsaferbehavior.Apersonwithdisabilitiesislesslikelytobeabletosoact.Apersonwhotendstoengageinriskybehaviorsgenerallyislesslikelytobesusceptibletobehaviorchangetoreduceoneparticularrisk.

Therefore,thissetoffindings,incombinationwiththeearlierfindingsregardingthelargeshareofvictimswhoareintimatewithignition,hasthefollowingimplicationsforstrategyselection:

• Formanyfatalvictimsofsmoking-materialfires,protectionstrategiesthatoperateafterignitionareunlikelytobesuccessful.Preventionstrategiesneedtobeemphasizedforthesefires.

• Thesmokerswhoseactionsandomissionsledtofatalsmoking-materialfiresaremorelikelytohavesignificantbarrierstobehaviorchangethantheindividualswhoareinvolvedwithothertypesoffatalfires.Therefore,strategiesthatmodifycigarettesand/orthecommonlyfirstignitedobjects(e.g.,upholsteredfurniture,mattress,bedding,clothing)needtobeincludedinaneffectiveprogramtoreduceriskofdeathduetosmoking-materialfire.

• Oneoftheseveneducationalmessagesrecommendedfromthisprojectisintendedtoaddresstheheightenedrisksassociatedwithseveralofthefollowingcharacteristicsthatadverselyaffectalertness:

To prevent a deadly cigarette fire, you have to be alert. You won’t be if you are sleepy, have been drinking, or have taken medicine or other drugs.

• TheEMACthatdevelopedtherecommendedmessagesagreedthattheemergingproblemofsmokingandmedicaloxygenneedstohaveaseparatemessagefocusedonit,whichcanbeusedinsituationswheretheuseofmedicaloxygenislikely:

Smoking should not be allowed in a home where oxygen is used.

Summary of Findings on Smoker Behaviors and Related Strategies

Decision to Smoke

Thedecisiontosmokeortosmokeregularlyiscorrelatedwith(a)otherrisk-increasingbehaviors(e.g.,drinking,useofotherdrugs);(b)stress;(c)earlyaddiction;and(d)severalclustersofconditionsthatcouldbeexpectedtocreatestress.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12Identifiedclustersincludethefollowing:

• personalexperiencewithviolence,asavictim,closerelativeofavictim,orvictimizer;

• poorrelationshipwithparents(e.g.,lackofparentalsupport,lackofparentalpresencebeforeand/orafterschool,lackofactivitieswithparents,single-parenthousehold,lackoffamilyconnectedness);

• poorsituationatschool,eitherpoorrelationshipsgenerally,poorperformancegenerally(e.g.,repeatingagrade,lowgradepointaverage),orpersonallimitations(e.g.,emotional,learning,ormobilitydisabilities)thatcouldmakeschooldifficultbothforlearningandforsocialrelationships;and

• attitudinalstrengthcharacteristics,includinglackofself-esteem,lackofreligiosity,andbeliefinearlydeath.

Itispossiblethattheotherrisk-increasingbehaviorsarenotcausesofsmokingbutarecorrelatedresultsofthesamecausethatleadstosmoking,e.g.,willingnesstoacceptriskinactivitiesthatgivepleasureortakingpleasurefromriskitself.

Smokersalsoaremorelikelytounderestimatewhattheriskis,andteenagesmokersaremorelikelytodiscountriskswhoseconsequencesaremanyyearsaway.13Manyassumethattheywillnotexperience

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECion aSSociation

theuncertainnegativeoutcomes.OnesuccessfulantismokingprograminAustraliausedthephrase“everycigaretteisdoingyoudamage”toencourageaudiencestothinkoftheriskasimmediate.14,15

Teenagesmokersaremorelikelythanteenagenonsmokerstobeangry.SuccessfulantismokingcampaignsinFlorida,California,andMassachusettschanneltheangerofteenagesmokerstowardtobaccocompanies,basedonthelatter’sallegedmanipulationofteenagersthroughtargetedmarketingandallegeddishonestyandcallousnessregardingthehealtheffectsofcigarettes.13,16

Smokerstendtovaluefreedomtosmokeoverriskstothemselvesbutcanregardriskstononsmokers(e.g.,secondhandsmoke)asaneffectiveargumentagainstsmoking.17

Thedecisiontosmokeispartofthesequenceofsmokerbehaviorsthatcanleadtoafire.Thisbriefsynopsisofresultsofantismokingprogramsfocusesonfindingsrelatedtosmokercharacteristicsthatcouldbeusefulindesigningstrategiesforchanging

smokerbehaviorstopreventfires.However,itwasconsideredoutsidethescopeoftheprojecttodevelopstrategiesfocusedspecificallyonthedecisiontosmoke.Itwasfurtherdetermined,basedonfocusgroupresearchbyHagerSharp,thepublicrelationsfirm,inanotherprojectfundedbyUSFA,thatstrategiestochangesmokerbehaviorswouldbemoreacceptedbysmokersiftheydidnotappeartobeintendedtocurtailsmoking.18

Consequently,noneoftherecommendedbehaviorsandassociatededucationalmessagesaremeanttoaddressthedecisiontosmoke,butbythesametoken,nonearephrasedsoastoappeartoendorseorexplicitlyacceptthedecisiontosmoke.

What Cigarettes IgniteThemajorityofsmoking-materialhomestructurefires(55percentin1999to2001)andmorethantwo-thirdsofassociateddeaths(71percentin1999to2001)involvetrash,mattressorbedding,orupholsteredfurnitureastheitemfirstignited(Figure7).Trashisamajorcontributoronlytofireincidentsandnottofatalfires.

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Deathsareestimatedtothenearestone.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomestructuresmoking-materialfireswithitemfirstignitedunknown.Figuresdonotincludeadjustmentforfirescodedasunclassifiedorunknown-typeopenflameorsmoking-materialorforconfinedfires.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Bothmattressesandupholsteredfurniturehavebeenthesubjectofdecades-longrequirements,industry-basedorgovernment-based,respectively,toreduceignitabilitybycigarettes.Thelong-termimpactoftheseprogramscanbeseenintherisingpercentageoffatalhomestructuresmoking-materialfiresthatbeginwithignitionofsomethingotherthanupholsteredfurniture,mattresses,orbedding.Thatpercentagewas15percentin1980to1982,20percentin1990to1992,and29percentin2000to2002.

Product Choices and the Control of Burning Cigarettes

Therearelimitstothecigaretteresistanceonecanbuildintopotentialitemsfirstignited.Whenthoselimitsarereached,twoalternativesaretochangethecigaretteitself(discussedlater)andtoimprovepracticesthatkeepthelitcigaretteandpotentialitemsfirstignitedapart.Ashtraysareintendedtobeusedtoachievethatseparation.

Thecharacteristicsofaneffectiveashtrayhavebeendescribedbymanydifferenttermsinexistingeducationalmaterials,butsomeofthoseterms(e.g.,“large”)werejudgedtobebothvagueandpotentiallyinadequate.Anashtrayisintendedtoprovideasaferepositoryforasheswhileacigaretteisbeingsmokedandasafetemporaryrepositoryforashesandbuttsafteracigarettehasbeensmoked.Thiswillhappeniftheashtrayminimizes

• thelikelihoodofalitcigarettefallingoutoftheashtray(depthwasdeemedthemostimportantfeature);

• thelikelihoodoftheashtrayitselfoverturningandspillingashes,embersandbuttsontopotentialcombustibles(“sturdy”wasdeemedthebestestablishedtermforwhatisneededinsuchanashtray);and

• thelikelihoodofahostilefireifashes,embers,orbuttsfalloutsidetheprotectedconfinesoftheashtray(asturdy,hard-to-ignitesurfacefortheashtraywasdeemedthebestwaytodescribewhatwasneeded).

Neitherliteraturenordatacouldbefoundontherelativefrequencyofsmokers’practicesregardingashdisposalorbuttdisposal,whetherfireensuedornot,oronthetimerequiredforbuttsandashes,leftalonebutnotactivelydowsed,tobecomesafefordisposalintoordinarytrashcontainers.Therefore,itwasnotpossibletodeterminetheimportanceofdowsingaspartofaresponsiblesmoker’sroutine.

Twoeducationalmessagesdevelopedforthisprojectaddressbehaviorsrelatedtoeffectiveuseofashtraysandeffectivetechniquesfordisposalofcigarettesaftersmoking:

Wherever you smoke, use deep, sturdy ashtrays. Ashtrays should be set on something sturdy and hard to ignite, like an end table.

Before you throw out butts and ashes, make sure they are out, and dowsing in water or sand is the best way to do that.

Thesecondmessageemphasizestheneedforsafedisposalandcitesdowsingasapreferredmethodbutleavesflexibilityastothechoiceofmeans.

Where to Smoke

Nearlyhalfofallsmoking-materialhomestructurefiresandroughlythree-fourthsofassociateddeathsinvolvefiresthatbegininthebedroomorthelivingroom,familyroom,orden.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Home Structure Fires Ignited by Smoking MaterialsAnnual Averages 1999 to 2001, by Area of Origin

Area of Fire Origin FiresCivilian Deaths Civilian Injuries

Direct Property Damage(in Millions)

Bedroom 6,800 29% 270 34% 860 46% $109 31%

Living room, family room, or den 3,600 15% 330 43% 490 26% $79 23%

Exterior balcony or unenclosed porch 1,800 8% 0 0% 30 2% $28 8%

Trash chute or container 1,700 7% 0 0% 20 1% $14 4%

Kitchen 1,600 7% 30 3% 70 4% $19 5%

Bathroom 1,100 4% 10 1% 50 3% $6 2%

Exterior wall surface 900 4% 0 0% 20 1% $7 2%

Garage or carport 600 3% 0 0% 30 1% $11 3%

Exterior stairway, ramp, or fire escape 400 2% 0 0% 0 0% $1 0%

Substructure area or crawl space 400 2% 10 1% 20 1% $5 1%

Laundry area 400 2% 0 0% 20 1% $4 1%

Courtyard, patio, or terrace 400 2% 0 0% 10 0% $4 1%

Hallway or corridor 300 1% 0 0% 10 0% $1 0%

Dining room 300 1% 30 4% 40 2% $7 2%

Other known area of origin 3,500 15% 100 13% 210 11% $53 15%

Total 23,700 100% 780 100% 1,870 100% $349 100%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Firesareshowntothenearesthundred,deathsandinjuriestothenearestten,andpropertydamage,unadjustedforinflation,tothenearestmilliondollars.Figuresreflectaproportionalshareofhomestructuresmoking-materialfireswheretheitemfirstignitedisunknown.Figuresdonotincludeadjustmentforfirescodedasunclassifiedorunknown-typeopenflameorsmokingmaterialorforconfinedfires.Totalsmaynotequalsumsbecauseofrounding.

Source:NFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

Availabledatadonotpermitcalculationoftheriskoffatalcigarettefiresrelativetotimespentsmoking,distinguishingdifferentroomsofahome.Therefore,althoughitisrareforfatalhomesmokingfirestobegininsuchroomsasthekitchen(3percent)orbathroom(1percent),itisnotpossibletosaythatanhourspentsmokinginthoseroomscarrieslessriskthananhourspentsmokinginthebedroomorlivingroom.

Thereissomeindirectevidenceoftherelativesafetyofsmokingoutdoors.In1994to1998,inthemonthsofDecemberthroughFebruary,therateofdeathsper100reportedsmoking-materialhomestructurefireswasmuchhigher--4.9inDecember

throughFebruaryand2.8intheothermonths,or75percenthigherinwinter.Winteriswhengoingoutdoorstosmokeismostdifficultand,therefore,leastlikelytohappen.

Basedonthisevidence,oneoftheprincipaleducationalmessagesfocusesonwherepeoplesmoke:

If you smoke, smoke outside.

Becausesomemaybeconcernedoversmokerresistancetothisbehaviorchange,itisusefultonoteevidencethat,inmanycases,ruleslikethesemayactuallybeseenasreinforcingestablishedhouseholdrulesratherthanreinventingbehavior.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

• AccordingtotheCDC,approximatelyhalf(53percent)ofsmokersdefinedasthosewhohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimeshaverulesagainstindoorsmokingathome,whilefouroutoffive(81percent)nonsmokershavesuchrules.Furthermore,15percentofsmokersand5percentofnonsmokershaveruleslimitingwhereorwhensmokingispermittedinsidethehome.

• AccordingtotheCDC,approximatelyone-fourth(27percent)ofsmokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokershaverulesagainstindoorsmokingathome,whileapproximatelyhalf(52percent)ofnonsmokershavesuchrules.Furthermore,24percentofsmokersand22percentofnonsmokershaveruleslimitingwhereorwhensmokingispermittedinsidethehome.

• Rulesonwheretosmokeweremorecommonwhenchildrenandanonsmokingpartnerwerepresent.17

ThePhiladelphia(PA)FireDepartmenthasaninnovativeoutreachprogramcenteredonthismessage.Oneoftheirfirefighters,RodneyJean-Jacques,doublesasahiphopartistunderthenameofCalAkbar.HehasdevelopedasongandvideotitledTake It Outside.MoreinformationisavailablefromLt.MichaelGrantoftheFirePreventionDivision(e-mailmichael.grant@phila.gov).

What to Smoke

Asdiscussed,therearelimitstothecigaretteresistanceonecanbuildintopotentialitemsfirstignited.Whenthoselimitsarereached,anotheralternativeistochangethecigaretteitself.TwomajorFederal-governmentstudiesofthepotentialriskreductionfromareducedignition-strengthcigarettereachedthefollowingconclusions:

• Areducedignition-strengthcigaretteistechnicallyfeasible.

• Astandardtestofcigaretteignitionstrengthistechnicallyfeasible.(AstandardtestwasdevelopedbyASTMCommitteeE05,FireStandards,andapprovedin2002asASTME2187.Thenameoftheorganizationisnowjusttheinitials,ASTM,whichoriginallystoodforAmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials.)

SeeAppendixDforamoredetailedandreferenceddiscussionofthisissue.

Forseveralyears,smokershavebeenabletopurchasecigaretteswithbandedpaper,atechnologyshowntoproducereducedignitionstrengthwithouthighercostsoradversesideeffects(suchashighertoxicity).However,availabilityhasbeenlimited,ashaspublicity,andbrandloyaltyremainsapowerfulfactorinsmokerchoice.Itisnotyetpossibletoidentifyfactorsinthedecisionsofsmokerstoselectoravoidreduced-ignition-strengthcigarettes.Therefore,theprojectdevelopedarecommendededucationalmessagethatsimplydrawsattentiontotheexistenceandeffectivenessofthetechnology:

If you smoke, choose fire-safe* cigarettes. They are less likely to cause fires.

Smoker Characteristics Related to Product Choice Behaviors

Severalpartsoftheanalysispointedtoproductchoicebehaviorsthatcouldsignificantlyreducerisk.Theseincludethechoiceofreducedignition-strengthcigarettes,thechoiceofmorecigarette-resistantupholsteredfurnitureandmattresses,andeventhechoiceofbetterashtraysandmoresuitablefurnishingsonwhichtoplacethoseashtrays.

*Thecigarettesinquestionarenotreally“fire-safe”intheimpliedabsolutesense,andplaceslikeNewYorkState,whichhaveadoptedorconsideredrequirementsforreducedignitionstrengtharecarefultoavoidtheterm“fire-safe.”Therefore,itmaybedesirabletorevisitthewordingofthismessage.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Whilemostinvolvefeaturesnotfoundasmuchoratallinolderproducts,noneoftheseproductchoicesappeartoinvolvehighercosts.However,accordingtotheCDCriskfactordatabase,smokingiscorrelatedwithpovertyandwithlowereducationalachievement.Thesetwofactorscouldhinderanyattempttoredirectproductchoicesandmakeitmorelikelythatoldproducts,madebeforefeaturesofgreatersafetywererequiredorinvented,willbeinplace.Forexample,poorhouseholdsmaybemorelikelytopurchaseusedproductsandavoidreplacingoldproductsthatarestillserviceable.

AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedasthosewhohavesmokedatleast100cigarettesintheirlifetimesweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavelessthanahighschooleducation(13.2percentversus9.4percent)andtohavehouseholdincomeoflessthan$20,000peryear(22.6percentversus19.3percent).

AccordingtotheCDC,smokersdefinedaseverydayorsomedaysmokersweremorelikelythannonsmokerstohavelessthanahighschooleducation(16.5percentversus11.5percent)andtohavehouseholdincomeoflessthan$20,000peryear(27.4percentversus24.2percent)

Presence of Others as a Factor in Strategy Design

Somestrategiestochangesmokerbehaviorsortheconsequencesofthosebehaviorsdependontheinfluenceofotherpersonswithregardtowhether,what,where,when,andhowtosmoke.Inaddition,theycanprovideandhelpmaintainanenvironmentthatismoreforgivingofstraycigarettebuttsandashes.

AccordingtoFIDO,thesmokerwhosesmokingmaterialsignitedthefirewastheonlypersonpresentinjustoverhalf(54percent)offatalcigarettefires.Inthesefires,however,smokersmaynothavelivedaloneandmayhavebeeninfluencedbyothers.

AccordingtoFIDO,onefatalvictiminfour(24percent)isnotthesmokerwhosecigarettestartedthefire.Therefore,ifothersarepresent,theyhavebothadirectandanindirectstakeintakingactiontopreventhostilefiresfromtakingplace.Thesevictimsarepresentinsometypesofroomsmorethanothers:

• Whenfirebeganinthebedroom,onlyoneofeveryninevictims(11percent)withknownlocationwerenotthesmokerswhosesmokingbeganthefire.

• Whenfirebeganintheliving room, family room, or den,nearlyone-thirdofvictims(31percent)withknownlocationwerenotthesmokerswhosesmokingbeganthefire.

• Whenfirebeganinany other roomorarea,morethanone-fourthofvictims(28percent)withknownlocationwerenotthesmokerswhosesmokingbeganthefire.

Therelationshipsofthesevictimstothesmokersareusefultoknow,astherelationshipsmaybearonthevictims’willingnessandabilitytoserveas“watchers”forthesmokers.Therelationshipsalsomaybearonthewillingnessofthesmokerstoaccepthelporadvicefromtheseothers.AccordingtoFIDO,thefollowingstatisticsdescribetherelationshipstothesmokersofthefatalvictimswhowerenotthosesmokers:

• Thirty-fourpercenthadthesmokersasparents(notallthevictimswereunderage18);

• Twenty-fivepercentwereneighbors(oftenfromotherapartmentunitsinthesamebuilding)orfriends;

• Fourteenpercentwerespousesorpartners;

• Thirteenpercentwereparentsofthesmokers;and

• Fourteenpercenthadotherrelationships(e.g.,sibling,nieceornephew,uncleoraunt,roommate,passerby).

Thespouses,partners,andparents(one-fourthofthetotalwhencombined)arereasonablylikelytobepresentinthehomemostofthetime.Thismeanstheyarelikelytobepresentinthehomemostofthetimeand,asaresult,wouldbeavailabletoactinsupportofthesafetyofthehouseholdfromsmoking-materialfires.Also,asspouse,parent,orpartner,theyarelikelytohavesomeinfluenceonthebehavioroftheirpartnersorchildrenwhoaresmokers.

Thechildren(one-thirdofthetotal)arealsoreasonablylikelytobepresentbutmaybelessableandwillingtoinfluencetheirsmokerparents.Theothervictims(two-fifthsofthetotalwhen

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

combined)areunlikelytobepresenttoprovidesuchinfluenceandlackthekindofcloserelationshipthatwouldmakesuchinfluenceseemappropriate.

AccordingtoFIDO,2percentoftotalfatalvictimsweretransientswhowerenotlegaloccupantsofthestructuresinwhichthefirebegan.Thesemightbethesmokersorothers.Thiswouldbeaparticularlydifficultgrouptoeducateinsaferbehaviors.

AccordingtoFIDO,fatalvictimswhowerenotthesmokerwhosecigarettestartedthefire(one-fourthoftotalvictims)aremuchlesslikelytohavebeenintheroomwherethefirebegan,letalonecloseenoughtothepointoffireorigintobecalled“intimatewithignition.”

• Ofthechildrenkilledbysmoking-relatedfires,14percentwerekilledinalivingroom,familyroom,orden,alwaysbyafirethatbeganinthesameroom.Theother86percentwerekilledinabedroom,alwaysbyafirethatbeganinadifferentroom.Thatdifferentroomwasusuallythelivingroom,familyroom,orden.

• Oftheneighborsandfriendskilledbysmoking-relatedfires,20percentwerekilledinalivingroom,familyroom,ordenbyafirethatbeganinthesameroom.Noneoftheother80percentwerekilledintheroomwherefirebegan.

• Ofthespousesandpartnerskilledbysmoking-relatedfires,only22percentwerekilledintheroomwherefirebegan.Thatroomwasthebedroomforhalfofthosevictims(11percentofallspouseandpartnervictims)andthelivingroom,familyroom,ordenfortheotherhalf.

• Oftheparentsofsmokerskilledbysmoking-relatedfires,nonewerekilledintheroomwherefirebegan.

• Only13percentofallnonsmokerfatalvictimscombinedwereinjuredintheroomwherethefirebegan.Forthat13percentofvictims,theroomwherethefirebeganandtheywerefatallyinjuredwasnearlyalwaysalivingroom,familyroom,orden.

• Therefore,87percentofallnonsmokerfatalvictimswereinjuredinadifferentroomfromtheroomwherefirebegan.

Thestatisticscitedinthissectionhavesomeimplicationsforbehavioralstrategies:

• Themajorityofsmokervictimshadnooneelseinthehousingunitwhentheywerefatallyinjured.

• Forthosesmokerswhohadsomeoneelsepresent,ouronlydetailedinformationisonthoseotherswhowerealsofatalvictims.

• Basedontheirrelationshipstothesmokers,manyofthoseotherswereunlikelytobepresentmuchofthetime(e.g.,neighbors,friends)andsomemighthavedifficultyininfluencingthesmoker.

• Mostofthenonsmokervictimswerenotinapositiontoseethefirestart.Toactas“watchers,”theywouldhavetotakesomekindofproactive

action,notjustmaintainaheightenedalertnesstofireoutbreaks.

Oneoftherecommendededucationalmessagesfocusesonproactiveactionslikecheckingforbuttsandashesaftersmokinghastakenplace.Thisisabehaviorthatnonsmokerscandoaseasilyassmokers,andifnonsmokers

arelesslikelythansmokerstohavebeendrinking,astheCDCdatabasesuggests,thennonsmokersmaybeamorereliableandavailablegrouptofocusthismessageon:

Check under furniture cushions and in other places people smoke for cigarette butts that may have fallen out of sight.

Victimswhoarenotfatallyinjuredintheroomwherefirebeginsalsoaremorelikelytobesavablebyfireprotection--workingsmokealarms,firesprinklers,compartmentation--becausetheytendtobefartherfromthefireandsohavetimeforfireprotectionfeaturesandsystemstowork.Thismeansthenonsmokervictimsaremoresavablebythesemeansthanthesmokervictims.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Converting Research Findings into Behavioral Strategies

Theresearchfindingscharacterizedthesizeandcharacteristicsofthesmoking-materialfireproblem.Mostofthesefindingswereusefulinhelpingdefinewhatbehaviorsneededtochangeinordertoreducethesmoking-materialfireproblem.However,thefindingsdidnotindicatewhatspecificbehaviorswouldbethebestchoicestotargetasthenewbehaviorsbysmokersandthosearoundthem.

NFPA’snewEMACwascreatedtoprovideadiverseandknowledgeablevolunteerbaseforconsensusrecommendationsoneducationalmessaging.Adaywassetasideforthemtodevelopandagreeonmessages,withtheresearchfindingsasinput.

Theprojectrecommendstheuseoffourgeneralmessages,twomorespecificmessagesforparticularaudiences,andaseventhmessagetobeusedwhenspaceortimepermit.Thefourgeneralmessagesareasfollows:

If you smoke, smoke outside.

Wherever you smoke, use deep, sturdy ashtrays. Ashtrays should be set on something sturdy and hard to ignite, like an end table.

Before you throw out butts and ashes, make sure they are out, and dowsing in water or sand is the best way to do that.

Check under furniture cushions and in other places people smoke for cigarette butts that may have fallen out of sight.

Thetwospecificmessages:

Smoking should not be allowed in a home where oxygen is used.

If you smoke, choose fire-safe cigarettes. They are less likely to cause fires.

Andtheseventhmessage:

To prevent a deadly cigarette fire, you have to be alert. You won’t be if you are sleepy, have been drinking, or have taken medicine or other drugs.

OneoftheprinciplesusedbytheEMACwasthatbehavioral-changemessagesaremorelikelytobeacceptedandacteduponiftheyarestatedpositively(“dothis”)ratherthannegatively(“don’tdothis”).Forthelastmessageshownabove,thisprinciplerequiredabitofastretchinwhichthemainmessage,statedpositively,wasalsorathergeneral.Thesecondsentencecontaineddetailnecessaryforclarity.Thatdetailwasunavoidablynegativeinform,butthesentencewasphrasedasanembellishmentofapositivemessageratherthanasanegative,imperativestatement.

Making Behavior Change More Likely

TheresearchfindingsdidnotidentifyanystrongresultsthatwouldpointtobeststrategiestotrytochangebehaviorsinthedirectionsselectedbytheEMAC.Instead,theprojectteamreviewedthesixquestionsinapopularmodelofhealthbeliefformationfortheirimplications.18TheprojectteamalsodrewinsightfromfocusgroupworkwithsmokersinaparallelprojectconductedfortheUSFAbyHagerSharp.19

What Factual Evidence Needs to Accompany the Educational Message?

ThefirstquestionintheHealthBeliefmodelasksaboutthetargetindividual’sexistingassessmentoflikelihoodofharmtargetedbythestrategies,whichinthiscontextwouldbetheexperienceofhavingasmoking-relatedfireandespeciallysufferinganinjury,particularlyafatalinjury,insuchafire.Thesecondquestionasksaboutthetargetindividual’sassessmentoftheseriousnessofsuchharm.

�0 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

HagerSharpfoundthatsmokersandnonsmokerswereunawareofthefirelosses.However,HagerSharpfoundnoresistancetotheideathatnearly1,000firedeathsayearwasveryserious.

HagerSharpalsofoundthatsmokerstendtobelievetheyareawareoftherulesoffire-safesmokingbehavior,andtherewasaclearsuggestionthatmanysmokersthereforebelievethattheirownprobabilityoffirelossislessthanthenationallossfigureswouldsuggest.

Teenagersconsideringwhethertosmoketendnottobeinfluencedbylong-termhealthconsiderations.

TheNFPAEMAC,whichdevelopedtherecommendededucationalmessagesaroundwhichourstrategiesareorganized,alsorecommendedthatfacts about the size and severity of the smoking-material fire problem be communicated with the educational messages.

Whenassemblingsuchafactsummary,therearechoicestobemadeonwhattypesandexamplesofharmtoemphasize.Acaseforhighseveritymightemphasizeanyorallofthefollowing:

• veryseriousnonfatalinjuries(wherethelong-termcostsofcareandthedisfiguringnatureoftheinjuriesmaygivethemevenmoreimpactthandeaths);

• verybroaddefinitionsofrelevantinjuries(e.g.,unreportedinjuries);

• verybroaddefinitionsofsmoking-relatedfires(e.g.,firesinvolvinglightingimplementsbutnotsmoking);and

• veryinclusivecalculationsofthecostsofinjuries(e.g.,includingpainandsufferingasmonetizedintortlitigation).

However,itispossibletocreateabacklashbymakingtheproblemofconcernappeartooterrible.Studiesofeffectivestrategiesinsafetyeducationnotlimitedtofiresafetyhaveconcludedthatimagesofseriousharmcaninduceacopingreactionofavoidingtheimagesratherthanchangingthetargetedbehavior.

Ourrecommendedapproachemphasizestheuseofthecorefactsinplainform.

What Detailed Guidance Should Accompany the Educational Message?

Itisrecommendedthattheeducationalmessagesbewrittentoprovideadditionalinformationonhowtobecarefulwithcigarettes.

Forexample,smokersmayassumetheyknowtheimportanceofusingashtraystocontrolburningcigarettessafely,buttheymaybeopentoinformationonthekindsofashtrays(i.e.,deep,sturdy)touseandthewaystousethem(e.g.,onasturdyfoundationthatwillnotburn).

Additionally,smokersmayassumetheyknowtheimportanceofnotdroppingcigarettebuttsorashesontoorintosoftfurnishings,buttheymaybeopentotheideaofaconfirmatorycheckonthosefurnishingstomakesure.

Thisarguesfortheuseofpictures(e.g.,goodversusbadashtrays,whereandhowtolookforbuttsorashes)inmaterialsdisseminatingthemessages.

What Side Effects Could Be of Concern for the Recommended Strategies?

OneoftheHealthBenefitmodelquestionshastodowiththetargetaudience’sperceptionofadversesideeffectsfromarecommendedstrategy.

Anumberofadversesideeffectshavebeenallegedforthereduced-ignition-strengthcigarette.Theseclaimsandrefutationsoftheseclaimshavebeenplayingoutintestimonyaboutproposedbillstorequireexclusiveuseofsuchcigarettes.Appendix

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Dhasabitmoreinformationonthetypesofsideeffectsbeingcited.

Oneofourbehavioralstrategyrecommendationsistomovemosthomesmokingoutdoors.Changingwhereorhowonesmokeswhileathomemeansgivingupthecomfortofafamiliarexperienceandthinkingconsciouslyaboutrisksandsafetymoreofthetime.Thesecouldbeperceivedasadversesideeffects.Smokingoutdoorsmaymeanalesscomfortableenvironment(notclimatecontrolled)andlessopportunitytosocializewithotherswhoarenotsmoking,tousetheentertainmentequipmentofthehome,andsoforth.Forallthesereasons,wepredictthattheefforttomoveoutdoorswillencounterresistance,andweincludethatrecommendationprimarilybecausetheCDCriskfactordatabaseindicatesthatalargepercentageofsmokersalreadyfollowsuchrulesintheirhomes.

Keeping Messages Short, Simple, and Clear

HagerSharpfoundresistancetosuchtermsofartas“abandon,”“extinguish,”and“discard.”Allofthesearetermsthatcouldslipthroughtheusualeducationfilterofavoidingwordswithmorethanthreesyllables.

Thisconsiderationwasareasonforkeepingthenumberofmessagesdowntosevenandidentifyingjustfourmessagesasprimarymessagesforallaudiences.

Would Humorous Messages Work in This Context?

HagerSharpexploredtheuseofhumorinmessagesasameansofreducingresistancefromsmokers.HagerSharpfoundhumorwaswellreceived,butoneperson’shumorcanbeanotherperson’sdisrespect.Humoralwayshasatarget,anditisnotclearwhatwouldconstituteasafebuteffectivetargetforhumorinthiscontext.

Forexample,considerthemessageswithhumorthatHagerSharptested:

“Don’tgetinbedwithabutt.”

“Don’tbarbecueinbed.Don’tsmokeeither;it’sjustasdeadly.”

Thefirstmessagereliesondoubleentendre.Therearepeoplewhohaveproblemswithhumorbasedonveiledsexualreferences,evenwhenitisasmildasthissample.

Thesecondmessagereliesonanalogy.Veryfewanalogiesareuniversallyconvincingorevenunderstood,andsomecanbedistracting.

Thehistoryofadvertisingisrepletewithhumor-tingedadsthatwerewidelyenjoyedbutnotparticularlyeffectiveinchangingbehavior,specifically,increasingpurchases.Humorthatfailscanwellbeworsethannohumoratall.

Thisprojectdoesnotrecommendtheuseofhumorinformulatingmessagesforthisfireproblem.

National Strategies for Implementation of Report Findings

SeeAppendixEfortheapplicationoftherecom-mendedmessagestoexistingUSFAeducationalmaterials.

Theimplementationoftheprojectresultsshouldbepursuedthroughintegrationofthemessagesintoestablishedpublicfiresafetyprogramsandcampaigns.

Training and Equipping the Educators

TwoPowerPoint®presentationshavebeendevelopedfromtheprojectresults.Thefirstsuchpresentationistargetedatsmokersandotherswhosebehaviorweseektochange.(SeeAttachmentI.)Inordertogainclarity,manyofthemessagesareaccompaniedbyappropriatephotographs.Thesecondsuchpresentationistargetedateducatorsandprovidesmoreofthedetailsoftheprojectandthethinkingbehindthemessages.(SeeAttachmentII.)

WerecommendthatthesetwopresentationsbemadeavailablefreeontheUSFAWebsite.Theyalsoshouldbeusedproactivelyinfiresafetyeducatortrainingsessionsandconferences.

Atsomepoint,itwouldbeusefultoprovidepublicserviceannouncementsinvariousmediafornationalorlocaldeployment.Werecommendthat

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

modelpublicserviceannouncementsbedevelopedfromtheresultsofthisprojectwiththehelpofpublicrelationsexperts,suchasHagerSharpwhohavealreadydonesomeworkfortheU.S.FireAdministrationonthesubjectofsmoking-materialfires,ascitedearlier.

Standardization of Educational Messages

TherecommendedmessagesdevelopedforthisprojectemergedfromanextensionofNFPA’snewEMAC.Thisgroupiswellequippedandwellpositionedtoprovideongoingmaintenanceofthesemessages,andwerecommendthattheybeaskedtodoso.

Wealsorecommendthatthesemessagesbesubjectedtofocusgroupandpilotprojectevaluation.Findingsfromthoseevaluationswillprovideamoredetailedsubstantivebasisfortheselectionandspecificwordingofthemessages.

Implementation of Findings Beyond USFA

Thisreportandthesemessagesshouldbeproactivelydistributedtootherdevelopersanddistributorsoffiresafetypubliceducationmaterials,whetherfocusedonfiresafetyorincludedinlargerpackagesonunintentionalinjuriesorhealthgenerally.Werecommendthatthisdistributionincludestrongencouragementtootherstoincorporatethesefindingsintotheirmaterials.

NFPAhasalreadytakentheinitiativetobeginimplementingthesefindingsinitspubliceducationmaterials,astheycomeupforroutinerevision.

Future Research

Therewereanumberofpointsinthemessagedevelopmentprocesswherebettertechnicalinformationwouldhavesupportedbetterormoreconfidentchoices.Thefollowingaretopicswhereadditionalresearchcouldleaddirectlytobettermessages:

• Is there a relatively safe place to smoke indoors?Somemembersofthemessagingcommitteewantedtorecommendthatsmokersusethekitcheniftheycannotorwillnotsmokeoutdoors.Ultimately,thatmessagewasnotincludedbecausetoomanyquestionsabouttheriskassociatedwithsmokinginthekitchencouldnotbeanswered.

Smoking-materialfiresandespeciallyfatalfiresaremuchmorecommoninbedrooms,livingrooms,familyrooms,anddensthaninkitchens,butitisnotknownhowthedifferenceinfirefrequenciescompareswiththedifferenceintimespentsmoking.Thequestionremainswhetherfiresarelessfrequentinkitchensprimarilybecausepeopledonotsmokeinthekitchenveryoften,ascomparedtootherrooms.

Inaddition,theargumentwasmadethatvulnerablesoftfurnishingsarelesscommoninkitchens.Noinformationwasavailable,however,toconfirmthemagnitudeofdifferencesinvulnerabilityofcontentstocigaretteignitionandtosubsequentfiregrowth.

Thisresearchprojectwouldinvolveassemblingmorecompletedataonthefuelloadinginkitchensversusotherroomsandontimespentsmokinginkitchensversusotherrooms.Thesamequestionhasbeenraisedregardingbathrooms.

• How big a problem is smoking around medical oxygen?Theavailabledataweretakenfromasmallnumberofjurisdictionsandwereneitherlargeenoughnorrepresentativeenoughtosupportnationalestimates.Aresearchprojecttobetterquantifythemagnitudeofthisproblemwouldbeusefulasanindicationoftheprioritythatshouldbeattachedtothispartofthesmoking-materialfireproblem.

• What is required to clear an area of medical oxygen before smoking?Therecommendedmessageisveryconservativeandstatesthereshouldbenosmokingbyanyoneinahomewheremedicaloxygenisused.Theprojectteamwasunabletofindanysubstantiatedguidanceonwhatisrequired,beyondturningofftheflowofoxygen,tomakearoomorareasafeforsmoking.Becauseoxygencanbeabsorbedbyclothingorotherfabricinthearea,theanswerisnotobvious.Aresearchprojectcouldprovideabasisforlessconservativebutstilleffectiveguidanceonsafepractices.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

• What behaviors would people be willing to perform to achieve safety when disposing of butts and ashes?Theprojectteamwentbackandforthregardingthestrengthoftherecommendationtouseimmersioninwaterorsandtoassurethatashesandbuttsweresafefordisposal.Aresearchprojectcouldexaminetheignitionpotentialinbuttsandashesbasedonothermethods,suchasstubbingoutthecigaretteandleavingitintheashtrayforadefinedperiodoftime.Aresearchprojectalsocoulddevelopbetterinformationonlikelysmokerresistancetomessagesthatwouldrequirebehaviorsastime-consumingasdowsinginwaterorsand.Thesameprojectcouldlookintovariationsofthemessageregardinginspectionofcouchcushionsandotherhiddensitesforstraybuttsorashes.Moredetailed,substantiatedguidanceonhowoften,when,andhowthiscanbestbedonewouldbehelpful.

• What approach works best in health care facilities?Adecadeormoreago,healthcarefacilitiesbegantakingamoreaggressive

approachtosmokingintheirfacilities.Threedifferentapproachesemerged.

Oneapproachwasacompletebanonsmokingbyanyone.Thisisclearlythemosteffectiveapproachifthebanisobserved,butconcernswereraisedovertherisksposedby“hiddensmoking,”inwhichthelitcigarettemaybeheldclosertosoftfurnishingswhilebeinghiddenfromhealthcareprofessionals.

Thesecondapproachwasrestrictionofpatientsmokingtodesignatedareas.Itisnotknownhowwellthoseareashavebeensecuredfromriskofcigarette-initiatedfireorhowsuccessfulfacilitieshavebeeninachievingcompliance.

Thethirdapproachwasarequirementthatpatientsbeattendedbymedicalpersonnelwhentheysmoke.Again,itisnotknownhowsuccessfulfacilitiesusingthisapproachhavebeeninachievingcompliance.

Aresearchprojectcoulddeterminethepopularityandhistoryofeffectivenessofeachoftheseapproaches.

��

References1.Holborn,PaulG.The Real Fire Library: Analysis of Fatal Fires 1996-2000.LondonFireBrigade--FireInvestigationGroup,LondonFireandEmergencyPlanningAuthority,Nov.2001.

2.Quillan,ThomasC.An Analysis of Civilian Fire Deaths in Tallahassee (Leon County) Florida: 1983-1994, Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction. AppliedresearchprojectsubmittedtotheNationalFireAcademyaspartoftheExecutiveFireOfficerProgram,Jan.1995.

3.U.S.FireAdministration/NationalFireDataCenter.Case Study: Contribution of Alcohol to Fire Fatalities in Minnesota.TopicalFireResearchSeries,Vol.3,Issue4,July2003,onlineathttp://www.usfa.fema.gov/inside-usfa/nfdc/pubs/tfrs.shtm

4.Blum,RobertW.,AnneKelly,andMarjorieIreland.“Health-RiskBehaviorsandProtectiveFactorsamongAdolescentswithMobilityImpairmentsandLearningandEmotionalDisabilities.”Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(2001):481-490.

5.Barbeau,ElizabethM.,NancyKrieger,andMah-JabeenSoobader.“WorkingClassMatters:SocioeconomicDisadvantage,Race/Ethnicity,Gender,andSmokinginNHIS2000.”American Journal of Public Health94,no.2(Feb.2004):269-278.

6.MinnesotaDepartmentofHealth,BlueCrossandBlueShieldofMinnesota,MinnesotaPartnershipforActionAgainstTobacco,andUniversityofMinnesota.

Patterns of Smoking among Minnesota’s Young Adults. Jan.2004,onlineathttp://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/tpc/TobaccoReports.html

7.OfficeonSmokingandHealth,DivisionofAdolescentandSchoolHealth,NationalCenterforChronicDiseasePreventionandHealthPromotion.“CigaretteUseamongHighSchoolStudents--UnitedStates,1991-2003.”MMWR Weekly53,no.23(2004):499-502,onlineathttp://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5323a1.htm

8.Rode,Pete.Youth Risk Behavior and Social Factors Associated with Smoking Cigarettes--Results from the 2001 Minnesota Student Survey; 6th, 9th and 12th Grade Students. MinnesotaDepartmentofHealth,CenterforHealthStatistics,Aug.9,2002,onlineathttp://www.mnschoolhealth.com/data.html

9.Rode,Pete.Teens and Tobacco in Minnesota--Results from the Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey. Dec.2001,onlineathttp://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/data/youthtob.pdf

10.Harrell,Joanne,S.,ShrikantI.Bangdiwala,ShibingDeng,JulieP.Webb,andChyriseBradley.“SmokingInitiationinYouth:TheRolesofGender,Race,Socioeconomics,andDevelopmentalStatus.”Journal of Adolescent Health 23(1998):271-279.

11.Siqueira,Lorena,MargueriteDiab,CarolBodian,andLindaRolnitzky.“AdolescentsBecomingSmokers:TheRolesofStressandCopingMethods.”Journal of Adolescent Health27(2000):399-408.

12.Viahov,David,SandroGalea,JenniferAhern,HeidiResnick,andDeanKilpatrick.“SustainedIncreasedConsumptionofCigarettes,Alcohol,andMarijuanaamongManhattanResidentsafterSeptember11,2001.”American Journal of Public Health 94,no.2(Feb.2004):253-254.

13.Goldman,LisaK.,andGlantz,StantonA.“EvaluationofAntismokingAdvertisingCampaigns.”JAMA279,no.10(1998):772-777.

14.Hill,David,SimonChapman,andRobertDonovan.“TheReturnofScareTactics.”Tobacco Control7(1998):5-8,onlineathttp://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/7/1/5.pdf

15.Wakefield,M.,J.Freeman,andR.Donovan.“RecallandResponseofSmokersandRecentQuitterstotheAustralianNationalTobaccoCampaign.”Tobacco Control 12(2003):ii15-ii22,onlineathttp://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/ii15

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

16.Niederdeppe,Jeff,MatthewFarrelly,andM.LyndonHaviland.“Confirming‘Truth’:MoreEvidenceofaSuccessfulTobaccoCountermarketingCampaigninFlorida.”American Journal of Public Health,94,no.2(2004):255-257.

17.Okah,FelixA.,WonS.Choi,KolawoleS.Okuyemi,andJaspit.S.Ahluwalia.“EffectsofChildrenonHomeSmokingRestrictionsbyInnerCitySmokers.”Pediatrics109,no.2(2002):244-249.

18.K.Glanz,B.K.Rimer,andF.M.Lewis,editors,Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice,3rded.,SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass,2002.

19.HagerSharp.UnpublishedfinalreporttoU.S.FireAdministrationonsmokerreceptivenesstoeducationalmessages,September30,2004.

��

Appendix ACharacteristics of Databases Used in Study

National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS)

TheUSFA’sNFIRSdatabaseisthemostrepresentativenationalfiredatabaseprovidingdetailedinformationonindividualfiresandcasualties.NearlyallnationalestimatesofspecificaspectsoftheU.S.fireproblembeginwithNFIRS.AboutathirdofU.S.firedepartments--workingthroughtheirrespectiveStates--participateinNFIRS,whichreceivesreportsonanestimatedone-thirdtoone-halfofeachyear’sfires.

NFPAandmostotherusersofNFIRScombineitwiththeNFPAsurveytoproducethebest“nationalestimates”ofthespecificcharacteristicsoftheNation’sfireproblem.

NFIRSwasestablishedinthemid-1970’swithonlyacoupleofStatesparticipating.By1980,therewassufficientrepresentationfromallregionstohavehighconfidenceinitsrepresentativeness.Thus,mostanalysesofNFIRSgobackonlyto1980.NFIRSusuallyisreleasedoncomputertapeinthespringofthesecondyearfollowingtheyearitcovers.

Fire Incident Data Organization (FIDO)

ManyquestionsoftechnicalinterestrequirealevelofdetailbeyondthatavailablethroughNFIRSortheNFPAsurvey.Forthese,thebestapproachoftenistouseexploratorydatafromadatabasewithsufficientvalidateddetailtobeuseful,eventhoughthatdatabasemaynotberepresentativeofoverallU.S.fireexperience.Thelargestsuchdatabase,excludingproprietaryinsurance-industrydatabasesthatfocusoncommercialpropertiesandfinanciallosses,isNFPA’sFireIncidentDataOrganization(FIDO).

FIDOisanincident-baseddatabasethatcombinesinformationfromfiredepartments,insurance

companies,FederalandStatesafetyagencies,andnewssources.NFPAdesignedandoperatesFIDOtoprovidethebestexamplesoffiresdemonstratingveryspecificphenomenaofhightechnicalinterest.Examplesincludefireswithinformationontheperformanceofspecifictypesoffireprotectionsystemsandfeatures.

WhenFIDOisnotrepresentativeofallreportedfires,itisprimarilybecauseitfavorslarger,moreseverefires,suchasfiresinvolvingfiveormoredeathsoratleast$5millioninpropertydamage.

FIDOhasoperatedsince1971asacomputerizedindextoNFPA’swell-documentedfires.FIDOcontainsdataonalmost92,000firesandnowaddsroughly1,500firesayear.Thereareupto113separatedatumelementsoneachincident,andcoverageextendstofiresofinterestaroundtheworld.

In1997to1998,theFIDOdatacollectioninstructionsweresettoincludeallfatalfires,andtheFIDOdatabaseisconsideredrepresentativeofallU.S.fatalfiresforthoseyears.

Manyofthedatumelementssoughtwereneveroralmostneverrecorded,includingdetailedinformationonexactlywherethefire-causingcigarettewaslocatedwhenitignitedafireandwherethesmokerhabituallysmokedwhileathome.Formostincidents,itwaspossibletoidentifypersonspresentwhenfireoccurredbasedonthesecharacteristics:(a)whethertheywerethesmokerwhosecigarettestartedthefireornot;(b)relationshiptothesmokerifnotthesmoker;(c)whetherthepersonwasfatallyinjured,nonfatallyinjured,oruninjured;(d)personallimitationsthatcouldhaveinfluencedtheignitionorreactiontofireafterignition,includingdistinguishingalcoholfromdrugimpairment,identifyinguseofmedicaloxygen,andidentifyinguptothreedifferentlimitationsperperson;(e)whetherthepersonwasintheroomoffireoriginandwhattypeofroomheorshewasin.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Forthisproject,datawereextractedfrom300qualified1997to1998incidents,withrecordson477individuals,including389deaths.

CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

TheCDCconductsanannualrandom-sampletelephonesurveycalledtheBehavioralRiskFactorSurveillanceSystem.Thelatestyearofavailabledataforthisstudywas2002,forwhich247,964interviewswereconductedandprocessed.

Everycellusedinanalysishadatleast400casesexceptforthefollowing:yestosmokingapipenow(45to1,005cases,dependingoncigarette-smokerstatus);mostresponsesregardingbidis(minimumof20casesforcurrentbidismokerswhoarenotcurrentcigarettesmokers);someanswerswithinthenot-alwaysresponsesfornonsmokersregardingseatbeltuse(analysisonlycontrastedalwayswithnot-always,andbothofthesehadatleast400cases);andsomeanswerswithinthe“allowed”groupregardingwheresmokingisallowed(analysisonlycontrastedallowedversusnot-allowed,andbothofthesehadatleast400cases).

��

Appendix BAdditional Statistics on Characteristics of the Victims of Smoking-Material Fires Related to Vulnerability

Table B-1. Ages of Victims of Smoking-Material Fires in U.S. Home Structures1994-1998 Annual Average of Fire Deaths and Injuries

Age1996 Population

(in Millions) Civilian DeathsDeath Rate perMillion Persons Civilian Injuries Injury Rate per

Million People

5 and under 23.3 (8.8%) 49 (5.2%) 2.1 72 (3.3%) 3.1

6 - 9 15.4 (5.8%) 11 (1.1%) 0.7 35 (1.6%) 2.3

10 - 19 37.6 (14.2%) 20 (2.1%) 0.5 173 (7.8%) 4.6

20 - 29 36.6 (13.8%) 64 (6.9%) 1.8 332 (15.0%) 9.1

30 - 49 83.2 (31.4%) 257 (27.4%) 3.1 808 (36.5%) 9.7

50 - 64 35.3 (13.3%) 199 (21.2%) 5.6 323 (14.5%) 9.1

65 - 74 18.7 (7.0%) 144 (15.3%) 7.7 227 (10.2%) 12.2

75 and over 15.2 (5.7%) 194 (20.7%) 12.7 246 (11.1%) 16.2

Total 265.3 (100.0%) 937 (100.0%) 3.5 2,217 (100.0%) 8.4

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswithunknownformofheatofignitionandofsmoking-relatedfireswheretheageofthevictimwasunknown.Civiliandeathsandinjuriesareroundedtothenearestone.Totalsmaynotequalsumsbecauseofrounding.

Sources:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey,andStatistical Abstract of the United States, Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,BureauoftheCensus,1997.

�0 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Table B-2. Age by Sex of Victims of Smoking-Material Firesin Home Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

1994-1998 Annual Average of Fire Deaths and Injuries

Age

1996Population

(in Millions)CivilianDeaths

DeathRateper

MillionPeople

CivilianInjuries

InjuryRateper

MillionPeople

Male

5 or younger 11.9 24 2.0 42 3.5

6-9 7.9 5 0.6 16 2.0

10-19 19.4 16 0.8 107 5.5

20-29 18.5 46 2.5 208 11.2

30-49 41.3 185 4.5 523 12.7

50-64 16.9 127 7.5 210 12.4

65-74 8.3 75 9.0 118 14.1

75 and over 5.6 87 15.7 86 15.5

Total 129.8 566 4.4 1,310 10.1

Female

5 or younger 11.4 25 2.2 30 2.7

6-9 7.5 6 0.8 19 2.6

10-19 18.3 4 0.2 66 3.6

20-29 18.0 18 1.0 124 6.9

30-49 41.9 72 1.7 285 6.8

50-64 18.4 71 3.9 113 6.1

65-74 10.3 69 6.7 110 10.6

75 and over 9.6 106 11.0 160 16.6

Total 135.5 371 2.7 907 6.7

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswithunknownformofheatofignitionandofsmoking-relatedfireswheretheageorgenderofthevictimwasunknown.Civiliandeathsandinjuriesareroundedtothenearestone.Totalsmaynotequalsumsbecauseofrounding.

Sources:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey;andStatistical Abstract of the United States, 1997,Washington:U.S.DepartmentofCommerce,BureauoftheCensus.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-3. Victim Location at Ignition in Home Fire Casualties,Smoking-Related vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

1994-1998 Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

A. Civilian Deaths

Location at Ignition Smoking Other Cause All Causes

Intimate with ignition 29.1% 10.9% 15.8%

Not intimate, in room of origin 28.0% 23.1% 24.4%

Not in room, on floor of origin 28.2% 32.5% 31.4%

Not on floor, in building of origin 13.0% 31.9% 26.8%

Outside of building of origin 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%

Unclassified 1.0% 0.8% 0.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B. Civilian Injuries

Location at Ignition Smoking Other Cause All Causes

Intimate with ignition 20.7% 14.9% 15.6%

Not intimate, in room of origin 25.6% 27.3% 27.1%

Not in room, on floor of origin 22.0% 25.3% 24.9%

Not on floor, in building of origin 24.2% 26.2% 25.9%

Outside of building of origin 5.7% 4.3% 4.5%

Unclassified 1.8% 2.0% 2.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswherethevictimlocationwasunknown.

Source:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Table B-4. Smoking vs. Other Leading Major Fire Causesby Selected Fire or Victim Characteristics

1994-1998 Home Smoking-Related Structure Fire Deaths Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

A. Civilian Deaths

Major Cause of FireAll

DeathsCondition =

AsleepIgnition Factor = Falling

Asleep

Smoking materials 23.0% 27.2% 76.3%

Intentional 16.3% 8.9% NA

Heating equipment 13.2% 16.8% 1.2%

Electrical distribution equipment 10.0% 12.2% 0.5%

Cooking equipment 9.3% 8.4% 12.8%

Child playing with fire 8.3% 6.2% NA

NA:NotApplicablebecause“fallingasleep”isidentifiedusingtheIgnitionFactordataelement,whichalsoisusedtoidentifyIntentionalandChildPlaying.Thosetwomajorcausescannotbeenteredwhen“fallingasleep”iscodedasthereasonforthefire.

Note: ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswherethemajorcausewasunknown.

Source:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

tmen

ts,y

ore

Inju

rTa

ble

B-5

. Vic

tim L

ocat

ion

at Ig

nitio

n vs

. Vic

tim C

ondi

tion

Bef

ted

to U

.S. F

ire D

epar

epor

truc

ture

Fire

s R

eria

l Hom

e S

1994

-199

8 Sm

okin

g-M

at

. Civi

lian

Deat

hsA Lo

catio

n at I

gniti

onAs

leep

Impa

ired

Disa

bled

Age-

Limite

dAw

ake

Tota

l

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

Intim

ate w

ith

igni

tion

22.5

%44

.9%

38.7

%20

.0%

49.4

%24

.0%

23.6

%2.

5%25

.5%

5.8%

29.1

%10

0.0%

Not i

ntim

ate,

in

room

of or

igin

26.6

%55

.3%

29.4

%15

.9%

33.8

%17

.1%

30.9

%3.

5%26

.4%

6.2%

28.0

%10

0.0%

Not i

n roo

m, o

n flo

or of

orig

in32

.6%

67.0

%25

.1%

13.4

%9.

6%4.

8%31

.8%

3.5%

26.9

%6.

3%28

.2%

100.

0%

Not o

n floo

r, in

bu

ildin

g of o

rigin

17.0

%76

.0%

5.9%

6.8%

4.6%

5.0%

13.6

%3.

3%17

.5%

8.9%

13.0

%10

0.0%

Outs

ide o

f bui

ldin

g of

orig

in0.

4%35

.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.7%

32.7

%0.

0%0.

0%1.

7%15

.7%

0.7%

100.

0%

Uncla

ssifi

ed0.

8%47

.4%

0.9%

13.9

%1.

0%14

.2%

0.0%

0.0%

2.0%

13.7

%1.

0%10

0.0%

Tota

l10

0.0%

58.0

%10

0.0%

15.1

%10

0.0%

14.2

%10

0.0%

3.1%

100.

0%6.

6%10

0.0%

100.

0%

ti

stic

svi

ctim

e Sta

the

ar . e

igad

es firw

here

ious .

br ese ser

fir

firy

of roun

ding

ial

usua

ll ti

on

indu

str of

un on

eal

loca

or

beca

use

ofti

onal

sum

s

agen

cies

ex

clus

ion

opor

te pr equa

l

Sta a

or not

orin

clus

ion an

d yed

eral

,y ma

F inju

r ot

als

to the e T

ory yb bef

wn.

onl

yte

d vil

hea

co

ndit

ion sho

no

te

repo

r

ar

es h

Fir

eac

. influ

ence

d

tmen

ts orf rest

rain

t

be

wn,

can

unde

r

depa

r un

kno

or e edas

firun

icip

alpr

ojec

tion

sw

tion

loss

loca un

clas

sifi

m

and

vict

imco

ndit

ion .ye

.S. v

Cas

ualty

U su

r

to

the A

ted orf NFP

ojec

tion

s.re

por

whe

re es

Shar an

d

es

fir wn.

of pr of NFI

RS

esfir

on

tes e

ares

tim

a tion

unkn

o

tes

allo

ca

base

d

esti

ma as

wy tes

tion

al

tion

alin

jur

na tion

al e esti

ma

e or

ar Na op

or

pr bef

tion

al

Thes

e

excl

uded

. a Na

Not

e:

incl

ude

cond

itio

n

Sour

ce:

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

tmen

ts,y

ore

Inju

rTa

ble

B-5

. Vic

tim L

ocat

ion

at Ig

nitio

n vs

. Vic

tim C

ondi

tion

Bef

ted

to U

.S. F

ire D

epar

epor

truc

ture

Fire

s R

eria

l Hom

e S

1994

-199

8 Sm

okin

g-M

at

B. C

ivilia

n In

jurie

s

Loca

tion a

t Ign

ition

Asle

epIm

paire

dDi

sabl

edAg

e-Lim

ited

Awak

eTo

tal

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

% b

y Lo

catio

n%

by

Cond

ition

Intim

ate w

ith

igni

tion

21.0

%52

.6%

40.1

%17

.3%

46.6

%9.

6%15

.8%

1.8%

11.5

%17

.3%

20.7

%10

0.0%

Not i

ntim

ate,

in

room

of or

igin

27.7

%56

.0%

34.7

%12

.1%

23.8

%4.

0%28

.3%

2.6%

19.9

%24

.1%

25.6

%10

0.0%

Not i

n roo

m, o

n flo

or of

orig

in23

.6%

55.6

%17

.3%

7.0

%18

.1%

3.5%

25.9

%2.

7%21

.3%

30.0

%22

.0%

100.

0%

Not o

n floo

r, in

bu

ildin

g of o

rigin

25.6

%54

.8%

4.6

% 1

.7%

8.8

%1.

5%29

.0%

2.8%

30.0

%38

.5%

24.2

%10

0.0%

Outs

ide o

f bui

ldin

g of

orig

in 1

.0%

9.0

% 2

.7%

4.2

% 1

.4%

1.0%

0.0

%0.

0%14

.6%

79.6

% 5

.7%

100.

0%

Uncla

ssifi

ed 1

.1%

33.2

% 0

.6%

3.3

% 1

.3%

3.1%

1.0

%1.

3% 2

.7%

47.2

% 1

.8%

100.

0%

Tota

l10

0.0%

51.9

%10

0.0%

8.9

%10

0.0%

4.3%

100.

0%2.

3%10

0.0%

31.0

%10

0.0%

100.

0%

w

here .

ear

. esefirfir ou

ndin

g

igad

es r

ious of of

bre tion

ser

fir yia

l allo

ca

beca

use

usua

ll

indu

str

un sum

s tion

al

or on

e op

oreq

ual

genc

ies of pr

ex

clus

ion a no

ty

a and

, ma

te yot

als

Sta

oror

incl

usio

nin

jur

T e

eder

al or wn.

bef

F sho

to

y the

onl yb y co

ndit

ion

not

ear

vi

l h

epor ea

che

a ores

trai

nt

ted

rr fes

Fir wn,

.in

fluen

ced

unde

run

kno

tmen

ts or edbe as

depa

rca

nw

tion

e uncl

assi

fi

fir loca

unic

ipal

proj

ecti

ons

lo

ss vict

imco

ndit

ion

m or the f

.S. and .y ee es v

U

to whe

rSh

ar

ted

Cas

ualty su

r

Aes

wn. NFP

epor fir

.

r and

es

fir ojec

tion

s ofti

on unkn

o

allo

ca as wof

NFI

RS

pr y

tes e on

ar

inju

r

esti

ma

tes

tion

al

base

d

esti

ma e

opor or

tes

tion

al bef

pr

tion

al

na

a esti

ma

ear Na

incl

ude

tion

al

Thes

e

Na

Sour

ce:

tist

ics

Not

e:ex

clud

ed.

cond

itio

n

vict

im

Sta

the

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-6. Victim Condition Before Injury in Home Fire Casualties,Smoking-Related vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

1994-1998 Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

A. Civilian Deaths

Condition Before Injury Smoking Other Cause All Causes

Asleep 58.1% 50.3% 52.4%

Awake and unimpaired 6.6% 19.6% 16.1%

Impaired by alcohol or other drugs 15.1% 7.0% 9.2%

Physical handicap (including bedridden) 12.7% 6.9% 8.5%

Too young to act 0.9% 7.6% 5.8%

Too old to act 2.3% 3.1% 2.9%

Mental handicap (including senile) 1.4% 2.1% 1.9%

Under restraint 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Unclassified 2.7% 3.2% 3.0%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B. Civilian Injuries

Condition Before Injury Smoking Other Cause All Causes

Awake and unimpaired 30.7% 59.1% 55.6%

Asleep 51.9% 30.3% 32.9%

Impaired by alcohol or other drugs 9.1% 1.9% 2.8%

Too young to act 0.8% 2.9% 2.7%

Physical handicap (including bedridden) 3.0% 1.5% 1.6%

Too old to act 1.5% 0.9% 1.0%

Mental handicap (including senile) 1.4% 0.8% 0.9%

Under restraint 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Unclassified 1.6% 2.5% 2.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswherethevictimconditionwasunknown.

Source: NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Note: ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationoffireswherethevictimlocationwasunknown.SleepingvictimisbasedonConditionBeforeInjury.FallingasleepisbasedonIgnitionFactorandreferstocircumstancesregardingthecauseofthefire,notthevictim.

Source:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-7. Leading Items First Ignited by Victim Location at IgnitionPercent of 1994-1998 Smoking-Material Home Structure Fire Deaths

Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

Item First Ignited All Victims

Victims Intimate with Ignition

Upholstered furniture 46.7% 34.2%

Mattress or bedding 27.1% 35.6%

Clothing 6.5% 15.0%

Trash 3.1% 1.8%

Multiple items first ignited 2.6% 1.4%

Unknown-type furniture 2.1% 1.0%

Papers 1.6% 1.1%

Interior wall covering 1.5% 1.2%

Structural member or framing 1.4% 0.8%

Unclassified item 1.1% 1.2%

Unknown-type soft goods or clothing 0.9% 1.7%

Unclassified furniture 0.7% 0.0%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationofsmoking-materialfireswheretheformofmaterialfirstignitedwasunknown.

Source: NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Table B-8. Trend in Share of Certain Leading Materials First Ignited in Home Structure Fire Deaths, 1980-1998

Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

Year Percent Share Involving Mattress, Bedding, or Upholstered Furniture

1980 85%

1981 83%

1982 86%

1983 86%

1984 87%

1985 80%

1986 80%

1987 76%

1988 81%

1989 85%

1990 79%

1991 84%

1992 78%

1993 82%

1994 72%

1995 73%

1996 73%

1997 75%

1998 77%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalallocationofsmoking-materialfireswheretheformofmaterialfirstignitedwasunknown.

Source: NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

ctiv

ity W

hen

Inju

red,

tmen

ts

Tabl

e B

-9. V

ictim

Loc

atio

n at

Igni

tion

vs. A

elat

ed v

s. O

ther

Cau

ses

vs. A

ll Ca

uses

ted

to U

.S. F

ire D

epar

epor

truc

ture

Fire

s R

Smok

ing-

R19

94-1

998

Hom

e S

. Civi

lian

Deat

hsA

Slee

ping

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Esc

ape

Actin

g Irra

tiona

lly or

Unab

le to

Act

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Fig

ht Fi

re or

Atte

mpt

ing R

escu

e

Loca

tion a

t Ign

ition

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Intim

ate w

ith ig

nitio

n 2

9.9%

2.

7% 1

1.2%

19.

5%

6.4%

9.6%

44.7

%26

.0%

30.6

%17

.6%

14.6

%15

.4%

Not i

ntim

ate,

in ro

om

of or

igin

26.

3% 1

8.6%

21.

0% 2

1.7%

19.

3%19

.8%

30.5

%29

.8%

30.0

%35

.2%

25.9

%28

.3%

Not i

n roo

m, o

n floo

r of

orig

in 3

0.5%

41.

2% 3

7.8%

33.

2% 3

6.9%

36.0

%17

.6%

22.5

%21

.3%

30.7

%24

.2%

25.9

%

Not o

n floo

r, in

bui

ldin

g of

orig

in 1

2.4%

36.

6% 2

9.1%

24.

5% 3

6.6%

33.7

%5.

4%19

.0%

15.6

%11

.9%

27.2

%23

.3%

Outs

ide o

f bui

ldin

g of

orig

in

0.9%

0.

5%

0.6%

0.

0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

0.6%

2.3%

6.8%

5.7%

Uncla

ssifi

ed

0.0%

0.

5%

0.3%

1.

0%

0.0%

0.2%

1.4%

2.0%

1.9%

2.3%

1.2%

1.5%

Tota

l10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0% e ar . eig

ades fir

ious

bre ser

fir

usua

llyia

lin

dust

run

one

or ge

ncie

s ofa

te excl

usio

nSt

a or

or

ed

eral

F incl

usio

n

to the

y on

l yb yte

d vil

epor he

a

res

wn.

Fir

in

fluen

ced

tmen

ts.

be un

kno

asca

nde

par w

efir

unic

ipal

ojec

tion

sti

onlo

ca

prlo

ss vict

im

m

the

and .y

.S. ev

U sur

to whe

re

A

ted

Cas

ualty

esfir N

FP

epor .

rfir oj

ecti

ons of and

es tion

of pr N

FIR

S

tes e al

loca

ar on

esti

ma

tes

tion

al ba

sed

es

tim

aop

or

tion

al tes

pra

na tion

al esti

ma

ear N

a in

clud

e

tion

al

Not

e:Th

ese

excl

uded

. ti

stic

s

Na

Sta

Sour

ce:

�0 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

tmen

ts (C

ont’d

)

ctiv

ity W

hen

Inju

red,

Tabl

e B

-9. V

ictim

Loc

atio

n at

Igni

tion

vs. A

elat

ed v

s. O

ther

Cau

ses

vs. A

ll Ca

uses

ted

to U

.S. F

ire D

epar

epor

truc

ture

Fire

s R

Smok

ing-

R19

94-1

998

Hom

e S

B. C

ivilia

n In

jurie

s

Slee

ping

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Esc

ape

Actin

g Irra

tiona

lly or

Unab

le to

Act

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Fig

ht Fi

re or

Atte

mpt

ing R

escu

e

Loca

tion

at Ig

nitio

nSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

es

Intim

ate w

ith ig

nitio

n31

.3%

4.2%

10.4

%7.

8%7.

2%7.

2%39

.8%

33.6

%34

.4%

14.4

%13

.6%

13.7

%

Not i

ntim

ate,

in ro

om of

or

igin

29.3

%21

.8%

23.5

%17

.6%

17.7

%17

.7%

28.5

%26

.9%

27.2

%27

.2%

33.2

%32

.7%

Not i

n roo

m, o

n floo

r of

orig

in19

.3%

38.3

%34

.0%

34.7

%31

.3%

31.7

%15

.3%

18.7

%18

.3%

21.7

%20

.8%

20.9

%

Not o

n floo

r, in

bui

ldin

g of

orig

in18

.5%

33.1

%29

.8%

36.5

%39

.8%

39.4

%12

.6%

14.9

%14

.6%

18.6

%17

.8%

17.8

%

Outs

ide o

f bui

ldin

g of

orig

in0.

6%1.

3%1.

2%2.

3%2.

0%2.

1%2.

9%3.

8%3.

7%15

.5%

12.2

%12

.5%

Uncla

ssifi

ed1.

0%1.

2%1.

2%1.

1%2.

0%1.

9%0.

9%2.

1%1.

9%2.

6%2.

4%2.

5%

Tota

l10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%

ti

stic

se Sta

ar . eig

ades fir

ious

bre ser

firy

ia

lus

uall

indu

str

un on

eor

genc

ies of

ate ex

clus

ion

Sta

oror

Fede

ral

incl

usio

nth

etoy

onl yb y

ted vil

epor

rhe

a

es

Fir

in

fluen

ced

tmen

ts.

be wn.

can

depa

re

firoj

ecti

ons

unkn

o

as

unic

ipal

wpr tion

loss

m lo

caan

d .y

vict

im e

.S. v

Uto A

Cas

ualty su

r

the

ted NFP

ojec

tion

s.re

por

whe

re

and

es es

fir firof pr of N

FIR

S

tes e on

ar tion

esti

ma

base

d

tes

allo

caes

tim

a tes

tion

al

tion

al

na esti

ma

e tion

alar N

a opor

pra tion

al

Thes

e

in

clud

e Na

Not

e:ex

clud

ed.

Sour

ce:

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

ctiv

ity W

hen

Inju

red,

tmen

ts

y vs

. Aor

e In

jur

0. V

ictim

Con

ditio

n B

efel

ated

vs.

Oth

er C

ause

s vs

. All

Caus

este

d to

U.S

. Fire

Dep

arep

ortr

uctu

re F

ires

RSm

okin

g-R

Tabl

e B

-1

1994

-199

8 H

ome

S. C

ivilia

n De

aths

A

Slee

ping

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Esc

ape

Actin

g Irra

tiona

lly or

Unab

le to

Act

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Fig

ht Fi

re or

Atte

mpt

ing R

escu

e

Cond

ition

Befo

re In

jury

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Asle

ep82

.3%

89.4

%87

.3%

65.8

%57

.7%

59.6

%16

.6%

10.9

%12

.3%

11.3

%34

.1%

28.4

%

Awak

e and

unim

paire

d0.

2%2.

3%1.

7%9.

5%21

.8%

18.8

%4.

7%25

.7%

20.5

%59

.9%

49.9

%52

.5%

Impa

ired

by al

coho

l or

othe

r dru

gs12

.3%

3.4%

6.2%

8.8%

4.0%

5.2%

24.9

%10

.3%

13.9

%13

.4%

4.0%

6.4%

Phys

ical h

andi

cap

(in

cludi

ng b

edrid

den)

1.8%

2.3%

2.1%

9.8%

5.0%

6.1%

40.9

%11

.4%

18.7

%6.

3%4.

1%4.

7%

Too y

oung

to ac

t0.

6%2.

0%1.

6%0.

0%6.

3%4.

8%0.

9%26

.1%

19.8

%0.

0%0.

8%0.

6%

Too o

ld to

act

0.3%

0.6%

0.5%

2.5%

2.3%

2.4%

5.8%

5.4%

5.5%

0.0%

4.3%

3.2%

Men

tal h

andi

cap

(inclu

ding

seni

le)

0.8%

0.0%

0.2%

1.4%

1.1%

1.1%

0.8%

6.3%

5.0%

2.8%

0.0%

0.6%

Unde

r res

train

t0.

6%0.

0%0.

1%0.

0%0.

0%0.

0%0.

0%1.

0%0.

8%0.

0%0.

0%0.

0%

Uncla

ssifi

ed1.

1%0.

0%0.

3%2.

2%1.

8%1.

9%5.

5%3.

0%3.

6%6.

3%2.

8%3.

7%

Tota

l10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%

e ar . eig

ades fir

ious

bre ser

firy

ia

lus

uall

indu

str

un on

eor

genc

ies of

ate ex

clus

ion

Sta

oror

F incl

usio

ned

eral

to the

y on

l yb yte

d vil

epor he

a

res w

n.

Fir

. influ

ence

dun

kno

tmen

ts be

as

can w

depa

r e

firun

icip

alpr

ojec

tion

sco

ndit

ion

lo

ss vict

im

th

e

man

d .y e

.S. e v

UC

asua

lty sur

to whe

r

A

ted es

fir NFP

epor .

ofr and

es tion

fir ojec

tion

sof pr N

FIR

S

e allo

ca

on

tes

ar

te

sti

onal

base

d

esti

ma

esti

ma

opor

tes

tion

al pra

na

esti

ma

e

incl

ude tion

alar

Thes

eN

a tion

al

Not

e: ex

clud

ed.

tist

ics Na

Sta

Sour

ce:

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireSct

ivity

Whe

n In

jure

d,

tmen

ts (C

ont’d

)

y vs

. Aor

e In

jur

0. V

ictim

Con

ditio

n B

efel

ated

vs.

Oth

er C

ause

s vs

. All

Caus

este

d to

U.S

. Fire

Dep

arep

ortr

uctu

re F

ires

RSm

okin

g-R

Tabl

e B

-1

1994

-199

8 H

ome

S

B. C

ivilia

n In

jurie

s

Slee

ping

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Esc

ape

Actin

g Irra

tiona

lly or

Unab

le to

Act

Atte

mpt

ing t

o Fig

ht Fi

re or

Atte

mpt

ing R

escu

e

Cond

ition

Befo

re In

jury

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Smok

ing

Othe

rCa

use

All

Caus

esSm

okin

gOt

her

Caus

eAl

l Ca

uses

Awak

e and

unim

paire

d1.

5%2.

3%2.

1%28

.3%

44.9

%42

.9%

25.6

%54

.6%

50.7

%61

.1%

82.2

%80

.3%

Asle

ep89

.1%

93.4

%92

.5%

61.2

%46

.6%

48.3

%12

.6%

5.9%

6.8%

28.3

%13

.0%

14.4

%

Impa

ired

by al

coho

l or

othe

r dru

gs7.

6%1.

7%3.

0%4.

8%1.

0%1.

5%26

.8%

7.5%

10.1

%5.

0%1.

0%1.

3%

Too y

oung

to ac

t0.

2%1.

0%0.

8%0.

8%2.

6%2.

4%4.

5%15

.9%

14.4

%0.

0%0.

1%0.

1%

Phys

ical h

andi

cap

(inclu

ding

bed

ridde

n)1.

0%1.

0%1.

0%2.

5%1.

4%1.

5%16

.1%

6.1%

7.4%

0.6%

0.4%

0.4%

Too o

ld to

act

0.4%

0.2%

0.2%

1.4%

1.3%

1.3%

4.6%

3.6%

3.8%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

Men

tal h

andi

cap

(inclu

ding

seni

le)

0.1%

0.1%

0.1%

0.8%

0.6%

0.6%

7.4%

3.7%

4.2%

0.7%

0.3%

0.3%

Unde

r res

train

t0.

1%0.

0%0.

0%0.

0%0.

1%0.

1%0.

0%0.

2%0.

2%0.

0%0.

1%0.

1%

Uncla

ssifi

ed0.

1%0.

3%0.

2%0.

2%1.

5%1.

3%2.

3%2.

4%2.

4%3.

5%2.

7%2.

8%

Tota

l10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%10

0.0%

100.

0%

e ar . eig

ades fir

ious

bre ser

firy

ia

lus

uall

indu

str

un on

eor

genc

ies of

ate ex

clus

ion

Sta

oror

F incl

usio

ned

eral

to the

y on

l yb yte

d vil

epor he

a

res w

n.

Fir

. influ

ence

dun

kno

tmen

ts be

as

can w

depa

r

efir

unic

ipal

proj

ecti

ons

cond

itio

n

loss vict

im

th

e

man

d .y e

.S. e v

UC

asua

lty sur

to whe

r

A

ted es

fir NFP

epor .

ofr and

es tion

fir ojec

tion

sof pr N

FIR

S

e allo

ca

on

tes

ar

te

sti

onal

base

d

esti

ma

esti

ma

opor

tes

tion

al pra

na

esti

ma

e

incl

ude tion

alar

Thes

eN

a tion

al

Not

e:ex

clud

ed.

tist

ics Na

Sta

Sour

ce:

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-11. Condition Preventing Victim Escape in Home Fire Casualties,Smoking-Related vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

1994-1998 Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

A. Civilian Deaths

Condition Preventing Escape Smoking Other Cause All Causes

Insufficient escape time or rapid fire progress 15.6% 27.6% 24.4%

Fire between person and exit 17.2% 22.2% 20.9%

No condition prevented escape 14.2% 16.0% 15.5%

Incapacitated before ignition 24.5% 10.5% 14.3%

Moved too slowly or failed to follow escape procedures 11.2% 8.1% 8.9%

Clothing on person burning 8.8% 4.7% 5.8%

Locked door 2.1% 3.0% 2.7%

Illegal gate or lock 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

Unclassified 6.2% 7.8% 7.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

B. Civilian Injuries

Location at Ignition Smoking Other Cause All Causes

No condition prevented escape 59.7% 68.3% 67.2%

Insufficient escape time or rapid fire progress 6.9% 11.5% 10.9%

Fire between person and exit 9.3% 6.6% 6.9%

Moved too slowly or failed to follow escape procedures 6.9% 3.4% 3.8%

Clothing on person burning 2.3% 3.7% 3.5%

Incapacitated before ignition 9.2% 2.3% 3.2%

Locked door 1.1% 0.6% 0.7%

Illegal gate or lock 0.2% 0.1% 0.1%

Unclassified 4.5% 3.5% 3.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Note:ThesearenationalestimatesoffiresreportedtoU.S.municipalfiredepartments.FiresreportedonlytoFederalorStateagenciesorindustrialfirebrigadesareexcluded.Nationalestimatesareprojections.Casualtyandlossprojectionscanbeinfluencedheavilybytheinclusionorexclusionofoneunusuallyseriousfire.Statisticsincludeaproportionalshareoffireswithanunknownconditionpreventingescape.

Source:NationalestimatesbasedonNFIRSandNFPAsurvey.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Table B-12. Location of Fire vs. Location of Fatal Victim, by Whether Victim Was the Smoker Whose Cigarette Started the Fire

FIDO Fatal Smoking-Related Home Fires from 1997-1998 A. Full Display

Victim LocationWhen Found Area of Fire Origin

TotalDeaths Smoker

Not theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

SmokerBathroom Bedroom 13 12 0 1

Bathroom Living room, family room, or den 5 5 0 0

Bathroom Other 1 0 0 1

Bedroom Bedroom 64 50 5* 9

Bedroom Kitchen 6 2 0 4

Bedroom Living room, family room, or den 59 21 28 10

Bedroom Other 5 1 2 2

Garage Other 2 2 0 0

Kitchen Bedroom 4 4 0 0

Kitchen Kitchen 2 1 0 1

Kitchen Living room, family room, or den 12 10 2 0

Kitchen Other 3 2 1 0

Kitchen Yard 1 0 0 1

Living room, family room, or den Bedroom 8 6 1 1

Living room, family room, or den Kitchen 4 3 0 1

Living room, family room, or den Living room, family room, or den 63 51 6 6

Living room, family room, or den Other 1 1 0 0

Porch or balcony Living room, family room, or den 3 3 0 0

Yard Bedroom 6 4 0 2

Yard Living room, family room, or den 2 1 0 1

Other Bedroom 10 6 2 2

Other Living room, family room, or den 18 12 6 0

Other Other 7 4 1 2

Unknown Bedroom 21 15 4 2

Unknown Kitchen 3 0 3 0

Unknown Living room, family room, or den 53 26 16 11

Unknown Other, specify: 13 2 0 11

Total Total 389 244 77 68

Percent of known total 100% 76% 24% --

*Only1ofthese5incidentsinvolvedthesamebedroomforvictimlocationandareaoffireorigin.

Source:FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-12. Location of Fire vs. Location of Fatal Victim, by Whether Victim Was the Smoker Whose Cigarette Started the Fire

FIDO Fatal Smoking-Related Home Fires from 1997-1998 (Cont’d)

B. Totals for Victim Location When Found

Victim LocationWhen Found Area of Fire Origin

TotalDeaths Smoker

Not theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

Bathroom All 19 17 0 2

Bedroom All 134 74 35 25

Garage All 2 2 0 0

Kitchen All 22 17 3 2

Living room, family room, or den All 76 61 7 8

Porch or balcony All 3 3 0 0

Yard All 8 5 0 3

Other All 35 22 9 4

Unknown All 90 43 23 24

Total Total 389 244 77 68

Source: FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

C. Totals for Area of Fire Origin

Victim LocationWhen Found Area of Fire Origin

TotalDeaths Smoker

Not theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

All Bedroom 126 97 12 17

All Kitchen 15 6 3 6

All Living room, family room, or den 215 129 58 28

All Yard 1 0 0 1

All Other 32 12 4 16

Total Total 389 244 77 68

Source:FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireSel

atio

nshi

p y

Vict

im R

7-19

98

al V

ictim

, bte

d th

e Fi

reart

3. L

ocat

ion

of F

ire v

s. L

ocat

ion

of F

ater

Who

se C

igar

ette

Sel

ated

Hom

e Fi

res

from

199

to S

mok

al S

mok

ing-

Rat

FID

O F

Tabl

e B

-1

Vict

im Lo

catio

nW

hen

Foun

dAr

ea of

Fire

Orig

in

Tota

lNo

tSm

oker

Child

ofSm

oker

Neig

hbor

or Fr

iend

of S

mok

er

Spou

se or

Pa

rtner

of

Smok

er

Pare

nt

of

Smok

erOt

her

Bedr

oom

Bedr

oom

51

0

2*

20

Bedr

oom

Livin

g roo

m, f

amily

room

, or d

en28

163

23

4

Bedr

oom

Othe

r2

20

00

0

Kitc

hen

Livin

g roo

m, f

amily

room

, or d

en2

00

20

0

Kitc

hen

Othe

r1

01

00

0

Livin

g roo

m, f

amily

room

, or d

enBe

droo

m1

00

00

1

Livin

g roo

m, f

amily

room

, or d

enLiv

ing r

oom

, fam

ily ro

om, o

r den

63

21

00

Othe

rBe

droo

m2

02

00

0

Othe

rLiv

ing r

oom

, fam

ily ro

om, o

r den

60

22

20

Othe

rOt

her

10

00

01

Unkn

own

Bedr

oom

41

20

01

Unkn

own

Kitc

hen

30

30

00

Unkn

own

Livin

g roo

m, f

amily

room

, or d

en16

34

23

4

Tota

lTo

tal

7726

1911

1011

Perc

ent o

f kno

wn to

tal

100%

34%

25%

14%

13%

14%

bega

n.e

fireor

oom

.

bef

bedr

iend

s,

sa

me fre

lik

the ,

site

on

olvi

ngv

eer

in wti

on

neig

hbor

s

ojec

t.

com

bina pr

tion

oom

Mos

t m

itig

a

oom

/Bed

r

.ad

ults

vi

or

eer be

ha

w er

Bedr

en

y smok

hild

r

onl orc f

the s

er’

ysis

is2 smok

anal

thes

e

FID

OSo

urce

: Som

e

of*1 N

ote:

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECTion aSSociation

Table B-14. Victim Condition, by Whether Fatal Victim Was the Smoker Whose Cigarette Started the Fire

FIDO Fatal Smoking-Related Home Fires from 1997-1998

A. Full Display

Limitation Limitation LimitationTotal

Deaths SmokerNot theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

Alcohol 35 26 3 6

Alcohol Drugs 4 4 0 0

Alcohol Drugs Physical disability-- not age 1 1 0 0

Alcohol Drugs Sleepy 6 3 0 3

Alcohol Mental disability--not age 1 1 0 0

Alcohol Other 8 6 0 2

Alcohol Oxygen 1 1 0 0

Alcohol Oxygen Sleepy 1 1 0 0

Alcohol Physical disability--not age 3 3 0 0

Alcohol Physical disability--not age Sleepy 8 8 0 0

Alcohol Physical limitation--age 1 1 0 0

Alcohol Physical limitation--age Sleepy 2 1 1 0

Alcohol Sleepy 60 50 4 6

Alcohol Sleepy Other 1 1 0 0

Drugs 1 1 0 0

Drugs Physical disability--not age 2 2 0 0

Drugs Physical disability--not age Sleepy 1 1 0 0

Drugs Physical limitation--age Sleepy 1 1 0 0

Drugs Sleepy 4 2 0 2

Mental disability--not age Physical limitation--age 1 1 0 0

Mental disability- -not age Physical limitation--age Sleepy 1 1 0 0

Mental disability-not age Sleepy 3 2 1 0

Mental limitation--age Physical limitation--age 2 1 1 0

Mental limitation--age Physical limitation--age Sleepy 3 2 1 0

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Table B-14. Victim Condition, by Whether Fatal Victim Was the Smoker Whose Cigarette Started the Fire

FIDO Fatal Smoking-Related Home Fires from 1997-1998 (Cont’d)

A. Full Display

Limitation Limitation LimitationTotal

Deaths SmokerNot theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

Oxygen 2 2 0 0

Oxygen Other 1 1 0 0

Oxygen Physical disability--not age 4 4 0 0

Oxygen Physical limitation--age 4 4 0 0

Oxygen Physical limitation--age Sleepy 3 3 0 0

Oxygen Sleepy 1 1 0 0

Physical disability--not age 9 7 0 2

Physical disability--not age Other 2 2 0 0

Physical disability--not age Physical limitation--age 1 0 1 0

Physical disability--not age Sleepy 14 8 4 2

Physical limitation--age 16 9 5 2

Physical limitation--age Sleepy 25 12 9 4

Sleepy 96 43 33 20

Sleepy Other 1 1 0 0

Other 6 5 0 1

None 53 21 14 18

Total 389 244 77 68

Percent of known total 100% 76% 24% --

Source:FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

��U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation

Table B-14. Victim Condition, by Whether Fatal Victim Was the Smoker Whose Cigarette Started the Fire

FIDO Fatal Smoking-Related Home Fires from 1997-1998 (Cont’d)

B. Totals for Limitations

LimitationTotal

Deaths SmokerNot theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

Alcohol 132 107 8 17

Drugs 20 15 0 5

Mental disability--not age-related 6 5 1 0

Mental limitation--age-related 5 3 2 0

Oxygen (medical) in use 17 17 0 0

Physical disability--not age-related 45 36 5 4

Physical limitation--age-related 60 36 18 6

Sleepy 231 141 53 37

Other 19 16 0 3

None 53 21 14 18

Source:FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

C. Totals for Limitations with No Other Limitations

LimitationTotal

Deaths SmokerNot theSmoker

UnknownWhether the

Smoker

Alcohol 35 26 3 6

Drugs 1 1 0 0

Mental disability--not age-related 0 0 0 0

Mental limitation--age-related 0 0 0 0

Oxygen (medical) in use 2 2 0 0

Physical disability--not age-related 9 7 0 2

Physical limitation--age-related 16 9 5 2

Sleepy 96 43 33 20

Other 6 5 0 1

None 53 21 14 18

Source: FIDOanalysisforsmokerbehaviormitigationproject.

�0 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireSte

d th

e Fi

reart

er W

hose

Cig

aret

te S

7-19

98o

Smok

elat

ions

hip

tal

Vic

tim R el

ated

Hom

e Fi

res

from

199

at5.

Vic

tim C

ondi

tion,

by

F al S

mok

ing-

Rat

FID

O F

Tabl

e B

-1

Lim

itatio

nLi

mita

tion

Lim

itatio

n

Tota

lNo

tSm

oker

Child

ofSm

oker

Neig

hbor

or Fr

iend

of S

mok

er

Spou

se or

Pa

rtner

of

Smok

erPa

rent

of

Smok

erOt

her

Alco

hol

30

11

01

Alco

hol

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

Slee

py1

01

00

0

Alco

hol

Slee

py

40

20

02

Men

tal d

isabi

lity-

-not

age

Slee

py

10

00

01

Men

tal li

mita

tion-

-age

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

1

10

00

0

Men

tal li

mita

tion-

age

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

Slee

py1

10

00

0

Phys

ical d

isabi

lity-

-not

age

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

1

00

01

0

Phys

ical d

isabi

lity-

-not

age

Slee

py

40

02

20

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

51

31

00

Phys

ical li

mita

tion-

-age

Sl

eepy

9

33

03

0

Slee

py

33

164

42

7

None

144

53

20

Tota

l77

2619

1110

11

Perc

ent o

f kno

wn to

tal

100%

34%

25%

14%

13%

14%

bega

n.e

fireor

bef

ie

nds,

frelik

site

,

oneer

wne

ighb

ors

ojec

t.pr

tion

M

ost

mit

iga

.ad

ults

vior

e beha

er erw

en

smok

hild

r

orfc

er’s

ysis

smok anal

So

me

Sour

ce:

FID

O

Not

e:

��

Appendix CAdditional Information on Smoking and Medical Oxygen

Philadelphia’sDeputyChiefGarritydescribedapubliceducationprogramtopreventoxygentherapyfiresinhis2000paperfortheExecutiveFireOfficerProgramattheNationalFireAcademy(NFA).FromMarch3,1999,toNovember30,2000,12oxygen-therapyfiresinPhiladelphiacaused3deathsandinjured7others.Althoughthecauseofsixfireswaslistedasopen-flame,inallsixcases,theopenflamewasbeingusedtolightacigarette.Theremainingsixwerespecificallycausedbysmoking.

Henotedthatlong-termsmokersfinditdifficulttoquiteveninthefaceofrequirementsthatpatientsnotsmoke.Theirpubliceducationprogramincludedamessagenottosmokewhile using oxygenandinstructscaregiverstoremoveallsmokingmaterialsandimplementsfromtheoxygenuser’sroom.Theirprogramincludedatelevisionpublicserviceannouncementandaschoolsupplementonthetopictoenlistthesupportofchildrenandgrandchildren.1

InaNovember2003safetybrochure,theMassachusettsOfficeoftheStateFireMarshalreportedthat“Since1997,16peoplehavediedand20otherindividualshavesufferedsevereburnsorsmokeinhalationinfiresinvolvingpeoplewhoweresmokingwhileusinghomeoxygensystems.”Peopleareadvisednevertosmokeorlightamatchwhileusingoxygen,tokeepallheatsourcesawayfromoxygenequipment,andnottoallowsmokinginsideahomewhereoxygenisused.Eveniftheoxygenhasbeenshutoff,theenvironmentstillmaybeoxygen-enriched.2

InatelephoneconversationwithJenniferMieth,PublicInformationOfficer,onMarch10,2004,shecommentedthattheywereconsideringtellingsmokerstoshutofftheoxygen,wait10minutes,andthengooutsidetosmoke.Inarecentfatalfire,aclothingignitionoccurredwhenanoxygenuserlitupaftershuttingofftheflowofoxygen.Shetheorizedthatthevictim’sclothingwasstilloxygen-saturated.

TheJointCommissiononAccreditationofHealthcareOrganizations(JCAHO)identifiedanumberofriskfactorsforfiresoccurringwhenhomehealthcarepatientswereusingsupplemental

involvingethicscommittees

oxygen.Theseincludedlivingalone,theabsenceofworkingsmokealarms,cognitiveimpairment,ahistoryofsmokingwhileoxygenwasinuse,andflammableclothing.Recommendationsincluded

betterstafftraining,improvedcommunicationamongproviders;

indecisionstoendservicestononcompliantpatients;andincreasingfiresafetywithsmokealarmsandotherpractices.3

AlisaWolf’s1998articleinNFPA Journal describesthegrowingnumberofpeoplewhorequiremedicalproceduresandequipmentwhilestill

livinginthecommunity.TheJCAHOhasstandardsforhomehealthcareorganizations,butaccreditationisnotmandatoryforhomehealthcareMedicareparticipation.Thehomeenvironmentismuchlesstightlyregulatedthanhospitalsornursinghomes.Peoplemaynotcomplywithrecommendations.Theymaycontinuetosmokedespitethedanger.Onefirechiefreportedapatientreleasingoxygentocoolaroom.4

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

References

1.Garrity,ThomasJ.A Public Education Program to Prevent Oxygen-Therapy Fires: Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction.NationalFireAcademyappliedresearchprojectaspartoftheExecutiveFireOfficerProgram,Emmitsburg,MD,2000.

2.OfficeoftheStateFireMarshal,MassachusettsDepartmentofFireServices.“SmokingandHomeOxygenSystems:‘SomePeopleDon’tKnowWhentoQuit.’”(Nov.2003),onlineathttp://www.state.ma.us/dfs/osfm/pubed/flyers/Smoking_and_Home_Oxygen.pdf

3.JointCommissiononAccreditationofHealthcareOrganizations.“LessonsLearned:FiresintheHomeCareSetting.”Sentinel Event Alert17,(Mar.2001),onlineathttp://www.jcaho.org/about+us/news+letters/sentinel+event+alert/print/sea_17.htm

4.Wolf,Alisa.“WhenHealthCareMovesHome.”NFPA Journal,92,no.1(1998):64-67.

��

Appendix DAdditional Information on Reduced-Ignition-Strength Cigarettes

OutsidetheU.S.,onMarch31,2004,theCanadianParliamentpassedBillC-260.Thisbillrequirescigarettestoself-extinguishifleftunsmoked.Provisionsofthebillwentintoeffectattheendof2004.7

OnApril2,2004,RepresentativeEdwardJ.MarkeyandRepresentativePeterKingintroducedtheCigaretteFireSafetyActof2004.ThebillreiteratesU.S.statisticsaboutcigarettefirelosses,andnotesthat,becauseofthepassageoftwobillspromotedbyJosephMoakley,theCigaretteSafetyActof1984andtheFireSafeCigaretteActof1990,thetechnicalworkforastandardhasbeendone.TheproposedbillwouldrequiretheU.S.ConsumerProductSafetyCommission(CPSC)toprescribeatleastonecigarettefiresafetystandardsimilartoNewYork’swithin18monthsofenactment.8,9Thebillwasnotenacted.

Theremaybeperceivedadversesideeffectstoareducedignitionstrengthcigarette.Forexample,smokersmayanticipatealessenjoyablesmokingexperienceorahighercost.Thetobaccoindustryhasencouragedtheseperceptionsinitstestimonyonbillstorequiresuchcigarettes.However,sincetheadoptionofarequirementinNewYork,earlyevidenceshowsnohighercost(andnoreasontoexpectcoststogohigher)andnoclearevidenceofadeclineinsmokingoramassiveattempttocircumventtheregulationinordertogetandenjoynoncompliantcigarettes.Atthesametime,thesearereactionstoalegislativerequirement.Smokerperceptionsstillappeartobeamajorbarriertoanylarge-scalevoluntary,market-drivenmovetoreduced-ignition-strengthcigarettes.

Thesafetycommunityalsomustkeepabreastofnewproducts.Bidis,filterlesscigaretteswrappedinaleaf,areusuallyimportedfromIndia.Theyoftenareflavoredandareseenasanentryforteensintotobaccouse.Theyaresaidtogooutmoreeasilythanconventionalcigarettes,andmustberelitfrequently.10Newproductsmaybeoutsidethepurviewofexistinglegislationorregulations.

Barilloet al.state,“Becausemanysmoking-relatedfirefatalitiesinvolvealcoholuse,modificationofhumanbehaviorisunlikelytobesuccessful.”1ThefirstFederallegislationonthetopicoffire-safe(or,moreaccurately,reduced-ignition-strength)cigaretteswasintroducedinthelate1920’sasatooltopreventforestfires.1

Ina1933article,Hoffheinsdescribedtestsdonetodetermineifmodifiedcigaretteswouldreducethelikelihoodofgrassorforestfloorignition.Theyfoundthattheadditionofcigarettetipsmadeofcigarettepaperwithlessinorganicmaterialreducedthenumberofcigaretteignitionsanddidnotdispleasetheconsumer.2

Intheirstudycomparingsmokerswhodidanddidnothavefiresandthebrandsofcigarettessmokedbyeachgroup,Karteret al.foundthatcigarettesinvolvedinfireswerelesslikelytohavefilters,tendedtohaveashorterfilterifafilterwaspresent,andtendedtohavegreaterporosityofcigarettewrappingpaper.Thetypeofpackwasrelevantformalesonly;theriskoffirewasmuchhigherifamansmokedacigarettefromasoftpackratherthanahardpack.3

IfanyoftheexperimentalcigarettesevaluatedbytheTechnicalStudyGroupundertheCigaretteSafetyActof1984hadbeeninexclusiveuse,thesmoking-materialfiredeathtollwouldhavebeenprojectedtodecreaseby58percentin1986,anditwasexpectedthatthesedeathswouldbereducedby64percentby1996.4In2001,Gannet al.reportedthatbandedcigarettestest-marketedbyamajormanufacturerhadalowerignitionpropensityinthetestscenariosthandidconventionalcigarettes.5

EffectiveJune28,2004,cigarettessoldintheStateofNewYorkmusthavealowignitionstrengthandbemorelikelytoself-extinguishifunattended.6

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

References

1.Barillo,DavidJ.,PeterA.Brigham,DebraAnnKayden,RobertT.Heck,andAlbertT.McManus.“TheFireSafeCigarette:ABurnPreventionTool.”Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, (Mar./Apr.2000):164-170.

2.Hoffheins,F.M.“FireHazardTestswithCigarettes,”Quarterly of the National Fire Protection Association27,no.2,(Oct.1933):132-140.

3.Karter,MichaelJ.,TerryL.Kissinger,AlisonL.Miller,BeatriceHarwood,RitaF.Fahy,andJohnR.Hall,Jr.“CigaretteCharacteristics,SmokerCharacteristics,andtheRelationshiptoCigaretteFires.”Fire Technology30,no.4,(1994):400-431.

4.Hall,JohnR.,Jr.et al.,“ExpectedChangesinFireDamagesfromReducingCigaretteIgnitionPropensity.”vol.5ofReport of the Technical Study Group Cigarette Safety Act of 1984,Washington:U.S.ConsumerProductSafetyCommission,1987.

5.Gann,Richard,KennethD.Steckler,SchuylerRuitberg,WilliamF.Guthrie,andMarkS.Levenson.Relative Ignition Propensity of Test Market Cigarettes.NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology,2001,onlineathttp://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire01/PDF/f01007.pdf

6.DepartmentofState,NewYork.“NewYorkStateAdoptsNation’sFirstCigaretteFireSafetyStandard.”PressReleaseDec.31,2003,onlineathttp://www.dos.state.ny.us/pres/pr2003/12_31.htm

7.Cherner,Joe(announcedby).“CanadaBecomesFirstCountrytoRequireFire-SafeCigarettes,”Mar.31,2004,onlineathttp://www.smokefree.net/JoeCherner-announce/messages/247275.html

8.Markey,Edward.“StatementofIntroduction:TheCigaretteFireSafetyActof2004.”Apr.2,2004,onlineathttp://www.house.gov/markey/Issues/iss_cigfs_pr040402.pdf

9.Markey,Edward.“ABilltoProvideforFireSafetyStandardsforCigarettes,andforOtherPurposes”Apr.2,2004,onlineathttp://www.house.gov/markey/Issues/iss_cigfs_bill040402.pdf

10.Fisher,Laurie.“Bidis--TheLatestTrendinU.S.TeenTobaccoUse.”Cancer Causes and Control,KluwerAcademicPublishers, PrintedintheNetherlands 11(2000): 577-578,onlineathttp://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/research/tobacco/tobacco%20notes%20archive/tobacco_notes_11_577_578_2000

��

Appendix EImplementation of Mitigation Strategies Into USFA Public Fire Safety Education Materials

mattressesandbedding,andclothingfires.Specialconcernsoftheveryyoungorveryoldcouldbeinsertedineachcauseparagraph,andtherewouldbeoneparagrapheachonjustthehighrisksofthesetwogroupstogowiththenineparagraphsonninecauses.

Withthisapproach,theoneparagraphonsmokingfirescouldhaveroomforthefirst4bulletsunderrecommendedmessagesandmightbeabletoalsoincludethelastbulletonalertness.Treattherecommendationsasaprioritizedlistandincludemessagesuptothespacelimits.

Is Your Home Fire Safe? Door Knob Hanger (FA-285/August 1999)

Thisincludesthreebulletsunderaheadlineof“SafeSmokingHabits.”Thiswouldbemoreconsistentwiththeothercause-relatedsectionsiftheheadlinewerechangedtosimply“Smoking.”Giventheseverespacelimits,includethefirsttwobulletsandallorthefirsthalfofthethirdbulletintherecommendedmessages.

Fire Safety Checklist for Older Adults (FA-221/August 2002)

Olderadultsareprobablythemostresistanttosignificantbehaviorchange.Theymaybeatheightenedrisk(e.g.,hypothermia)ifpressedtosmokeoutside.Theyalsoareparticularlyinneedofthealertnessandmedical-oxygenmessages.Thisparagraphincorporatesthesecond,third,andfourthbulletsandthelastoneonalertness:

If You Smoke, Avoid Fire.Whereveryousmoke,usedeep,sturdyashtrays.Smokingshouldnotbeallowedinahomewhereoxygenisused.Beforeyouthrowoutbuttsandashes,makesuretheyareout,anddowsinginwaterorsandisthebestwaytodothat.Checkunderfurniturecushionsandinotherplacespeoplesmokeforcigarettebuttsthatmayhavefallenoutofsight.Topreventadeadlycigarettefire,

Thefollowingseveneducationalmessagesweredevelopedforthisproject:

• Ifyousmoke,smokeoutside.

• Whereveryousmoke,usedeep,sturdyashtrays.

• Beforeyouthrowoutbuttsandashes,makesuretheyareout,anddowsinginwaterorsandisthebestwaytodothat.

• Checkunderfurniturecushionsandinotherplacespeoplesmokeforcigarettebuttsthatmayhavefallenoutofsight.

• Smokingshouldnotbeallowedinahomewhereoxygenisused.

• Ifyousmoke,choosefire-safecigarettes.Theyarelesslikelytocausefires.

• Topreventadeadlycigarettefire,youhavetobealert.Youwon’tbeifyouaresleepy,havebeendrinking,orhavetakenmedicineorotherdrugs.

TheserecommendedmessagesshouldbeappliedtoexistingUSFAeducationalmaterials,withprioritizingbasedonspaceavailable,asdescribedbelow:

Protecting Your Family From Fire (FA-130/August 2002)

Changestothisshortbrochureprobablywouldrequireamoregeneralrethinkingofthestructureandspaceallocationprioritiesofthebrochureasawhole.Currently,cause-relatedinformationislimitedtoafractionofoneparagraph.Roughly3pagesand11paragraphsaredevotedtocauses,toxicity,andthespecialrisksoftheveryyoungandveryold.

Ifthisbrochurewererestructuredalongcauselines--withaparagrapheachonsafetytips--itcouldcoversmoking,heating,cooking,candle(primarypartofopenflame),electricaldistributionequipment,child-playingfires,andalsoupholsteredfurniture,

�� Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

youhavetobealert.Youwon’tbeifyouaresleepy,havebeendrinking,orhavetakenmedicineorotherdrugs.

Fire Risks for the Blind or Visually Impaired (FA-205, 12/99)Fire Risks for the Deaf or Hard of Hearing (FA-202, 12/99)Fire Risks for the Mobility Impaired (FA-204, 12/99)Fire Risks for the Older Adult (FA-203, 10/99)Thesefourreportsallincludeagenericsectiononsmoking-relatedsafetyguidanceinasectiononalltypesoffiresafetytips.Itisrecommendedthatthesebereplacedwithaparagraphincorporatingalltherecommendedmessages,i.e.:

Ifyousmoke,smokeoutside.Whereveryousmoke,usedeep,sturdyashtrays.Beforeyouthrowoutbuttsandashes,makesuretheyareout,anddowsinginwaterorsandisthebestwaytodothat.Checkunderfurniturecushionsandinotherplacespeoplesmokeforcigarettebuttsthatmayhavefallenoutofsight.Smokingshouldnotbeallowedinahomewhereoxygenisused.Ifyousmoke,choosefire-safecigarettes.Theyarelesslikelytocausefires.Topreventadeadlycigarettefire,youhavetobealert.Youwon’tbeifyouaresleepy,havebeendrinking,orhavetakenmedicineorotherdrugs.

Also,considerwhethermoretargetedmessagesmightmakesense,e.g.:

Yourdisability/agemaymeanyouwillneedmoretimetodiscoverorreacttoafire.Theserecommendationsonwhere,whenandhowtosmoke--andonwhattodotokeepcontrolofcigarettebuttsandashes--areextraimportanttomakesureyouarenottrappedbyadeadlyfire.

Itisstronglyrecommendedthatanysuchmessagebedevelopedandreviewedwiththefullparticipationandapprovalofanappropriateadvocacygroupfromthedisabledorolder-adultcommunity.

The Rural Fire Problem in the United States (FA-180/August 1998)

Becausethisisaresearchreportratherthanapubliceducationpiece,itisnotacandidateforrevisedlanguageitself.Iforwhenapubliceducationcampaignisdevelopedwitharuralfocus,thenitisrecommendedthattheearliercitedmessagingbeincorporatedinthesmoking-relatedfiressection,withtheexactversiondependingonthesizeofthespaceavailable.

Theresearchindicatesthatsmokingdoesnotrankashighamongcausesoffatalfiresinruralareasasinnonruralareas.Heatingrankshighest.Nevertheless,smokingisaleadingcauseoffatalfiresinruralareas,anditshouldreceivestrongemphasisinarural-orientedcampaign.

Fire Safe Student Housing (FA-228/February 1, 1999)

Thisisaguideforcampushousingadministratorsandsoisnotanexactfitforthemessagingdevelopedhere.Smokingisthesubjectoftwoparagraphsonpage11.Theresearchportionisflawed.Fallingasleeporpassingoutisnottheprimarymechanismforfatalsmokingfires.Thereisnoneedtoidentifyaproblemasprimary.Thetwoproblemsidentified--theotherisalongsmolderingperiodthathindersdetectionwhilepeopleareawake--shouldhavetheirorderreversed,butneithershouldbeidentifiedasprimary.

Theadvicegivenusefullydifferentiatesbetweentheincreasinglycommonsituationofasmoke-freecampus--inwhichindoorsmokingisprohibitedeverywhereandtherulesoffiresafetyessentiallyconsistofrigorouslyenforcingtheban--andthesituationofanunregulatedcampus,inwhichcasetheauthor’sadviceshouldbechangedtotherecommendedall-messageparagraph,ascitedundertheFireRisksfortheOlderAdultseries.

Formoreinformationorcopiesofthispublication,pleasecontact:

Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Fire Administration16825SouthSetonAvenue

Emmitsburg,Maryland21727800-561-3356

www.usfa.dhs.gov

FA-302/February 2006