Mail Call

NFPA Journal, Sep/Oct 2006

Comments?

We welcome your letters, comments, and story suggestions. Please send your information to: NFPA Journal, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101

email: jnicholson@nfpa.org

CONTINUALLY AMAZED

In response to Mr. Shannon's "First Word" column in the July/August 2006 edition, I continue to be amazed at what people focus their efforts on.

Needless to say, I support the prerogative of individuals to use fireworks. My family has done so for years. Yes, we have not always completely followed safe operation instructions. And yes, my best high school friend lost parts of two fingers in a cherry bomb accident when it went off in his hand. However, I feel that the government is too involved in our lives today as it is and the last thing we need is more restriction on personal activities. Further, I don't remember NFPA taking a poll of membership before establishing this policy statement, I certainly would not have agreed.

In his column, Mr. Shannon states that in 2003, there were five deaths in fires started by fireworks. Further, between 1998 and 2002 eight people per year were killed in fires started by fireworks and six people per year killed directly by fireworks.

This is in a population of dose to 300 million people. If you turn over one page, you read that 700 to 900 people per year die due to fires started by cigarettes. Yes, every life is precious and events that can be identified as dangerous should be noted. Yes, NFPA has taken a position that fire-safe cigarettes should be and have been developed. But why not go further and state that cigarettes should be banned since they cause cancer. Or for that matter, cars should be banned since 40,000 plus people a year die in accidents on the road! Consumers obviously are not smart enough to properly operate cars and cigarettes. As to $58 million in property damage, that is a pittance of the total fire damage in the US and why you have insurance (for accidents).

Certainly Mr. Shannon has a right to his opinion. But individuals in this country also have the right to figure out what they want to do. That is why Florida no longer has a helmet law for motorcycles (which I support, but I would not be caught on a bike, motor, or otherwise, without a helmet).

Where do we stop in attempting to outlaw "dangerous" activities? How many people a year die in hang-gliding accidents, or bike accidents, or hunting accidents, or off road ATV accidents, or any one of a number of accidents that can happen in our lives?

If Mr. Shannon is going to be consistent with his statement that, "We believe strongly that fireworks are too inherendy dangerous to be used by consumers and that retail sales of fireworks should be banned everywhere," I expect a similar statement to be made about any recreational activity that causes a greater number of deaths a year. It gets ridiculous really fast. The bottom line is, if you don't want to get hurt doing something, don't do it or be around those that are. That is why we live in a free country. Thanks for the time to vent.

RAYMOND F. PARHAM

NFPA Member

Gainesville, Florida

LNG'S SAFETY RECORD

I read with great interest the article by P.K. Raj in the May/June 2006 issue of the NFPA Journal on liquefied natural gas (LNG). I had at the time just returned from the Tobago Gas Technology Conference in which LNG featured centrally. Two points I made at the conference will I believe add some interest to P.K. Raj's article.

One is that the transportation of LNG by sea has an unblemished safety record. Since the very first transportation of LNG by sea (from the Louisiana coast to London) in 1959 to the present day there is no record of a fatality or a serious injury in the transportation of LNG by sea. The distance covered by the LNG-bearing vessels of the world over that period is estimated as 60 million miles.

Secondly, the picture of an LNG tanker in Boston Harbor in the article by Raj merits a comment. Outer Brewster Island, 10 miles out to sea from Boston and currently occupied by a redundant military plant, is proposed as the site of a huge storage facility for LNG. An argument in favor of the Outer Brewster Island plan is that an LNG vessel actually in Boston Harbor could be the target for a terrorist attack as there are residential premises very close to the Harbor.

J.C. JONES

NFPA Member

Department of Engineering

University of Aberdeen, UK.

RESTRICTIVE RULES

I read with great interest the "First Word" on consumer fireworks in the July/August 2006 issue. I am the Ere Marshal for the City of South Salt Lake. I am also a professional pyrotechnician of 25 years.

While I agree wholeheartedly with your column advocating the elimination of consumer fireworks while promoting the attendance of professional shows, I must point out a disturbing trend that is beginning to show its self. The different government agencies that regulate the pyrotechnics industry have slowly added more and more restrictive rules and regulations governing the storage and use of professional fireworks. Within the next 10 years, if this trend continues the use of professional fireworks will be by and large regulated out of existence. The exception may be the largest shows that can manage to comply with the complex set of regulations that are before us. The smaller shows that are the favorite of celebrations all over the U.S. will cease to exist.