In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a P t e r 13 fighti nG for ai r “Fire is an eXothermic oXidation reaction that proceeds at such a rate that it generates detectable heat and light.” So begins a standard textbook on the science of fire. However scientifically accurate that definition may be, it does not begin to convey fire’s power to consume wood, flesh, and the very oxygen that sustains life—so rapidly that escape from it may be impossible. Describing fire as a “self-sustaining chain reaction requiring combustible fuel, oxygen and energy” is a little like explaining death as “the cessation of heartbeat and brain activity.” It kind of misses the central point. A more useful approach to fire, at least as regards its ability to harm man, might be to view it as a living organism competing with nearby humans for a limited resource—oxygen. Both fire and mankind need oxygen to sustain themselves. Fire requires about a 16 percent concentration of oxygen to survive; we require 12 percent to function unimpaired. Room air has only 21 percent oxygen. The result of this shortfall is a most unhealthy competition. Fire and humans both engage in a process called oxidation. Humans do it on a cellular metabolic level; fire, on a much larger scale. While we tend to think of fire as the destruction of matter, the laws of chemistry tell us that matter is not destroyed but is, instead, changed in form. This can either be a physical change, such as changing from a liquid to a gas, or else it is a chemical change, in which its elements are recombined. Fire is an example of the second type: a chemical change by which fuel is broken down and its elements (predominantly carbon) recombined with oxygen in the process of oxidation. Two big differences between the two contenders for oxygen are their rates of its consumption and the weapons available to each. Fire is a voracious oxidizer. Our bodies’ cells work at a slower, but no less imperative pace. Fire’s arsenal in this contest includes heat and poisonous gases; ours, only water and our wits. Each combatant is quite capable of destroying the other to obtain the precious O2. From a human standpoint, when it comes to fire, it is a case f i g h t i n g f o r a i r 83 of survival of the fittest. The choices are kill, escape, or be killed. Without a sprinkler system in place, the first option—killing the fire—was unattainable , and the patrons of The Station nightclub had the second option for only a woefully short period of time. In the end, the third option asserted itself. Fire can be defeated in the battle by removing any of its three prerequisites: fuel, oxygen, or heat. Take away any one, and the fire goes out. Increase one or more, and the blaze increases, potentially spreading to other fuels. Since fire is a chain reaction, an increase in its intensity means an increase in generated heat—which itself feeds the cycle of fuel and oxygen consumption—until one of the three elements is exhausted. Humans can lose the contest because of fire’s heat, its toxic byproducts, or its consumption of oxygen. Any one will do. In order to escape these perils, we have to understand how fire develops. A good starting point is the nature of flame. We all know that fuel can be solid, like a log in a fireplace. Few of us realize, however, that only a gas or vapor burns with a flame. When we see a “flaming log” we are actually watching combustion of gases being driven from the solid log in a process called pyrolysis. The same is true of a burning candle. Wax melts, undergoes pyrolysis, and the resulting gas burns with a visible flame. The initial heat to begin the chain reaction must come from an external source. But once fire begins, it produces enough heat itself to continue pyrolysis and the chain reaction we call burning. In the Station fire, before polyurethane foam on the walls could burst into flame, the solid foam had to undergo pyrolysis from the heat of the gerbs’ sparks striking it. The process was aided by the low-density, open-celled nature of the foam, as well as by the foam’s shape. The peaks and valleys of the foam’s convolutions were perfect for catching sparks and maintaining them in contact...

Share