*brings up all the antique furniture from the basement* time to redecorate :D 3 hours later...this actually looks better than my new furniture....yard sale time
@@eleanorhogan8643 because the modern room had poyester and other low flash point materierals as the legacy room has high flash point matterals like wood, cotton, wool, silk! also polyester and plastic will cling to the body if burned on as with cotten or wool would cleanly burn off you!
I found this Video explicit in detailing the differentials between the Modern "Chemical Fire" where due to the older style furnishings the fire developes into what could be classed as a "Natural growth Event". Both deadly but easily managed by our Ventilation System, currently undergoing Final Testing in the Uk.
This video is about furnishings, not building materials. It's not designed, from what I understand, to compare legacy and modern building materials and techniques.
1. When seconds count, help is minutes away. 2. Smoke detectors save lives: as long as there's a battery in it, it's properly placed, and it's loud enough to wake you up. 3. Get fire sprinklers installed in your home, either installed when built or retrofitted.
macmedic892 actually ionization smoke detectors that are in 90% of homes fail to operate 55% of the time in a smoldering fire such as this one. I suggest checking out the omni shield network. The lithium maganese batteries in them last 20 years. They also can actually see a fire happening with infra red sensors and quarts crystal processors. It's state of the art stuff but worth investing in. Comes with an app and many other features
@@Beezy089 Optical/photoelectrical and CO/2-detector if there's improper central ventilation is pretty much all you need. Heat-sensitive detectors are overkill for private residence given the enclosed space, as are giving the system a 2-way connection - This is a life-saving system, it should never EVER accept remote connections and there's absolutely no need for it. An enclosed wireless water-detector and lock-system will give audible warnings to anyone in the house and shut off the relevant valve(s) to prevent damage, while optical and/or CO-gas detectors are easy to chain-connect internally with automatic dialing over IP with SIM-backup past 30+ seconds if the owner doesn't manually stop it. Ionizing detectors are unreliable, but there's no need to spend thousands on a system that in reality makes you less safe given it introduces several new critical failure points. Even security-companies mess up occasionally, do you genuinely trust a company making smoke detectors and mobile apps to not do the same? And what is the app for actually? Are you expected to start fiddling with your mobile phone while in a potential emergency where seconds count, instead of audibly and visually(if chained) be guided to the initial detector? I assume 90% of homes is for the US? Ionizing detectors became a rarity here(across the pond) 20 years ago, and all buildings after 2010 have by law at the bare minimum optical detectors with direct net-power and battery backup(usually 5-10 year duration). IIRC anything residential built after 2015 has heat-released fire sprinklers installed as well.
true, but being a past fireman, I also know that houses are not opened like this, which give it more oxygen, allowing a faster hotter burn, most houses since closed will allow less fire, since it is hotter it burns up the air faster. But even though it is worse then the older stuff, we save more houses in these times then years past, we now go to save a house and life, back then we went to extinguish a pile of burning wood that used to be the house.
This video is acurate. Modern furnishings are made cheaper now than you would think and just saying fire resistant doesn't mean its fire proof. All plastics are petroleum based and most modern items are made from plastic. When the right temperature is reached, these plastics will burn hotter and more violently than wood, cotton and other, more basic materials, and it does not take long to reach these temps once a fire, or just a flame alone, is established and has enough oxygen to breathe.
And some things in a house fire such as gun ammunition, lithium ion batteries, and celluloid movie film contain their own oxidizer and do not need oxygen to decompose and generate lots of heat and destruction.
I think it was also a factor that these rooms were open at the front. This provided the fire with a lot of oxygen and sped up the spreading of the fire.
Thanks. I was wondering why all the houses in Sonoma-Napa burned so fast, despite some having tile roofs and tree-free defensible space all around them. After the Oakland FIrestorm, much has been said about keeping the brush away from your house, but in Santa Rosa it didn't seem to make a difference.
It's important to have a fire extinguisher as you can extinguish most fires within at least a minute or even 2 When it reaches the ceiling then it would be hard to do it yourself
I know the research very well. All you said is true, however considered that the modern home is more airtight, and is hotter burning, I would be more worried about backdraft than flashover. Modern construction is a consideration in firefighting but it shouldn't be the biggest. Fire conditions should determine whether or not you enter these buildings or get on top of them, NOT construction type. It should be a factor but once again judging conditions is the most important tool you have.
Most modern homes will burn to the ground about as fast as that legacy room flashed.... they are garbage not even built with solid wood floor joists anymore. There are some good builders still out there... some even build with sprinklers but most are not
there is no fucking way that you can "fight" the fire on the right side on your own. Just think about it, 3:40 minutes till the flashover occured. No one has the time for it. You're in panic anyway, plus you're probably trying to get your pets, family member and other stuff out into safety. Would you even remember where your fire extinguisher is? Do you even have one? Is the door closed, and if you open it, is there a chance (obviously) that you get roasted if you open it?
So all the furniture that they make nowadays that says "fire resistant" on it is just lying? Considering how many times I've seen a lit cigarette dropped on furniture and it just goes right out much less reaches flashover in 3 minutes, I find this very difficult to believe .
I would have thought it would have been the opposite way round. I would have thought that nowadays they would be using more advanced flame retardant materials in things.
lion Heart all the fire retardant stuff manages is to stop a cigarette from igniting it immediately. Which is what you see at the beginning when the new room takes a while to start burning.
This is comparing furnishings not build methods or material. You may want to open up a wall or two in that old home of yours. I have seen many that use newspapers and other stuff for insulation.
username132 That experiment is probably scare mongering. And plus they used a massive hall to put them 2 rooms next to each other which doesn’t simulate a real life house or an apartment, them rooms were rich in oxygen, probably not much carbon monoxide were produced during them 2 experiments.
Brominated treated is a fire retardent. This is wasn't very scientific. Drapes were different. People have much less upholstered furniture than they used too. Google "No, Modern Furniture Is Not Burning 8X Faster In A House Fire". Dieing in a fire is much less than it was....smoke alarms.
We can if we are prepared to pay for the extra cost, which we aren't most of the time. If you go for the cheapest shit at Ikea you really shouldn't expect much in the way safety.
***** Perhaps also that the synthetic materials generate more toxic gases that contribute to heat propagation throughout the room and causes flashover to occur sooner (not to mention that smoke being more dangerous to people or animals caught in it).
synthetics, plastics release highly flammable gases when there's severe heat in the room (from a building fire).. these gases are part of the dark smoke that quickly ignites the room when the temperature and concentration reaches the critical level.
No, the toxic smoke that is released from synthetic materials during a house fire Isn’t more dangerous to your health than toxic smoke released during a house fire from natural materials, synthetic materials release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide during a house fire, but natural materials also release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide as well during a house fire. Also a house fire involving natural materials is also much more likely to smoulder for a very long time before it actually catches flame, and synthetic materials don’t really smoulder for a long time before it catches fire, and a smoulder fire is much more dangerous than a flame fire because a smouldering fire produces much more carbon monoxide than a flame fire.
A few thoughts regarding today vs. 30 years ago. 1. There are most certainly fewer fires today than 30 years ago, no? 2. There are more smoke detectors in use, hence quicker detection. 3. Forcible entry tools are not as primitive as 30 years ago, so maybe FD gains access quicker. 4. Universal use of SCBA and bunker gear-get to seat of fire. 5.The presence of Cell phones with alarms being reported sooner. 6. Thermopane windows slowing down self venting/ auto exposure before FD arrival.
No matter it only takes one fire to kill you. With today's materials you have less than three minutes to get out of the house. Your will be unable to be awoken by the smoke detector, get out, call 911, and get firefighters on scene in less than three minutes. Just not gonna happen.
@@joshmarvin5720 Just came across this on a website for the National Safety Council. "Although the number of fire-related deaths has decreased by 46% since 1980, 2020 marks a 23% increase from the record low number of deaths recorded by NFPA in 2012 (2,855). The 2020 civilian fire death toll of 3,500 is 5.5% lower than the 3,704 total in 2019."
also to add to my earlier post, if this is accurate, why then has so many older houses and stuff been lost over the years compared to newer houses? Seems that evidence shows lack of facts in this video. Granted, compared to old fire techniques to new (horse drawn fire pumps), i can understand, but even within the last 30 years the basics have been reliable, older houses were lost more then newer ones.
They are controlling for one situation. The furnishings. Modern furnishings go up in flame faster. If you put old furnishings in a new house, the new house would burn slower than if you filled it with new furnishings. The age of the house itself, wiring issues and a bunch of other things can lead to older homes catching on fire. Here, they just wanted to test for the furniture. The point here is that the conditions were the same for both "rooms" except for what is in them.
Yet Buiding Science, Architects, Planners, Builders and Society allow Building Product Suppliers to sell these very dangerous products to unsuspecting buyers.
+G Hawirko (StyroHome) Idiot. You want to pay 10x as much to be "safer" when all you really need to do is be properly cautious in the first place, go ahead. I'll take the risks and save the money.
ok, i cant disagree with the video showing the new furnishings, but my question is this, most "new" furnishings are made to be more fire proof, then the old cotton and wood stuff years ago. Yes with plastics and such now a days this seems to be more dangerous, but I'ld like to know what kind of furniture and stuff was put inside, because if you "stacked" the deck with bad furnishings your tests can be a false positive, and not show accurate fire conditions.
Well no shit it took a half an hour, there's a whole side of a wall gone where the heat, and flamable gasses are escaping. In a house, all 4 sides are sealed by a wall, trapping all that heat and gasses inside the room.
Proving non-fire treated polyurethane foam burns super well is nothing new or a surprise. Without the open side and infinite ventilation the thick smoke would have kept the fire from growing like it did!! Many fire departments are using this video as an excuse to never try to go inside since they can't make it to a fire in less than the flash-over in this unrealistic video. There is no other modern plastic in common use that burns like blown foam polyurethane! Most burn poorly. Why is something introduced in the 1950s suddenly being used in 2010s as a reason to not fight fires in the interior of structures????? This video has done a lot of harm!
Hey. Everybody WANTED this thing called "deregulation". The commercial entities touted loudly that it would be the "best thing" for people. It was just excuse for commercial interests not to be held responsible for careless/shoddy manufacturing practices.
*brings up all the antique furniture from the basement* time to redecorate :D 3 hours later...this actually looks better than my new furniture....yard sale time
modern room: *turns into inferno*
legacy room: "oh did we start already?"
I do not understand why the modern room burnt like that and the legacy room did not.
@@eleanorhogan8643 the plastics burn much more rapidly than natural fibers
@@wyster14 Oh.
@@eleanorhogan8643 because the modern room had poyester and other low flash point materierals as the legacy room has high flash point matterals like wood, cotton, wool, silk! also polyester and plastic will cling to the body if burned on as with cotten or wool would cleanly burn off you!
@@awesomeninja9178 good Lord.
I found this Video explicit in detailing the differentials between the Modern "Chemical Fire" where due to the older style furnishings the fire developes into what could be classed as a "Natural growth Event". Both deadly but easily managed by our Ventilation System, currently undergoing Final Testing in the Uk.
This video is about furnishings, not building materials. It's not designed, from what I understand, to compare legacy and modern building materials and techniques.
1. When seconds count, help is minutes away.
2. Smoke detectors save lives: as long as there's a battery in it, it's properly placed, and it's loud enough to wake you up.
3. Get fire sprinklers installed in your home, either installed when built or retrofitted.
macmedic892 actually ionization smoke detectors that are in 90% of homes fail to operate 55% of the time in a smoldering fire such as this one. I suggest checking out the omni shield network. The lithium maganese batteries in them last 20 years. They also can actually see a fire happening with infra red sensors and quarts crystal processors. It's state of the art stuff but worth investing in. Comes with an app and many other features
and I keep setting off my detectors by accident.
@@Beezy089 Optical/photoelectrical and CO/2-detector if there's improper central ventilation is pretty much all you need. Heat-sensitive detectors are overkill for private residence given the enclosed space, as are giving the system a 2-way connection - This is a life-saving system, it should never EVER accept remote connections and there's absolutely no need for it. An enclosed wireless water-detector and lock-system will give audible warnings to anyone in the house and shut off the relevant valve(s) to prevent damage, while optical and/or CO-gas detectors are easy to chain-connect internally with automatic dialing over IP with SIM-backup past 30+ seconds if the owner doesn't manually stop it.
Ionizing detectors are unreliable, but there's no need to spend thousands on a system that in reality makes you less safe given it introduces several new critical failure points. Even security-companies mess up occasionally, do you genuinely trust a company making smoke detectors and mobile apps to not do the same? And what is the app for actually? Are you expected to start fiddling with your mobile phone while in a potential emergency where seconds count, instead of audibly and visually(if chained) be guided to the initial detector?
I assume 90% of homes is for the US? Ionizing detectors became a rarity here(across the pond) 20 years ago, and all buildings after 2010 have by law at the bare minimum optical detectors with direct net-power and battery backup(usually 5-10 year duration). IIRC anything residential built after 2015 has heat-released fire sprinklers installed as well.
The heat shatters windows and that alone, or an open door to other rooms, provides more than enough air flow for the fire.
Perfect example of why I love my 1916 home, fully stocked with antiques.I may actually have a chance of saving it from a fire.
perfect example of why i love my -5329 BC home its a good cave and FIREPROOF
@@AlexRaGeAHoLiC negative Bc is in the future XD
wood, cotton, wool, silk all have high flash points so you have time to try and put it out or call fire fighters
Excellent test. About two minutes of safe egress time. You need both types of smoke alarm technology in this environment. Seconds matter!
true, but being a past fireman, I also know that houses are not opened like this, which give it more oxygen, allowing a faster hotter burn, most houses since closed will allow less fire, since it is hotter it burns up the air faster. But even though it is worse then the older stuff, we save more houses in these times then years past, we now go to save a house and life, back then we went to extinguish a pile of burning wood that used to be the house.
Brian M thx for da lesson
Not sarcasm
This video is acurate. Modern furnishings are made cheaper now than you would think and just saying fire resistant doesn't mean its fire proof. All plastics are petroleum based and most modern items are made from plastic. When the right temperature is reached, these plastics will burn hotter and more violently than wood, cotton and other, more basic materials, and it does not take long to reach these temps once a fire, or just a flame alone, is established and has enough oxygen to breathe.
And some things in a house fire such as gun ammunition, lithium ion batteries, and celluloid movie film contain their own oxidizer and do not need oxygen to decompose and generate lots of heat and destruction.
Hence why the modern home took longer to have a visible flame but a shorter amount of time to flash over.
I think it was also a factor that these rooms were open at the front. This provided the fire with a lot of oxygen and sped up the spreading of the fire.
Thanks. I was wondering why all the houses in Sonoma-Napa burned so fast, despite some having tile roofs and tree-free defensible space all around them. After the Oakland FIrestorm, much has been said about keeping the brush away from your house, but in Santa Rosa it didn't seem to make a difference.
It may have played some role but wildlamd firefighting is a whole different monster than structure.
That was more down to the winds. Beyond a certain amount of wind you simply cannot get ahead of it.
Wow, 3:40 until flashover makes its pretty difficult to get water on the fire before it flashes
Much less make a viable rescue.
It's important to have a fire extinguisher as you can extinguish most fires within at least a minute or even 2
When it reaches the ceiling then it would be hard to do it yourself
@Whammer79 Not necessarily. Many more factors than just modern home furnishings determine flash time.
Natural materials vs petroleum products
I know the research very well. All you said is true, however considered that the modern home is more airtight, and is hotter burning, I would be more worried about backdraft than flashover. Modern construction is a consideration in firefighting but it shouldn't be the biggest. Fire conditions should determine whether or not you enter these buildings or get on top of them, NOT construction type. It should be a factor but once again judging conditions is the most important tool you have.
got this video in a Powerpoint in our fire-safety class. I'm a Marine Engineering student :)
Well, we didn't make any progress in that regard did we?
No, we actually lost progress.
240p in 2010?! Was this filmed using a Motorola Razr?
Even by 2010 standards 240p is pretty garbage. Hell, that was around the time that RUclips introduced 1080p.
Maybe modern furniture needs a modern fire protection system.
I agree with you completely.
Most modern homes will burn to the ground about as fast as that legacy room flashed.... they are garbage not even built with solid wood floor joists anymore. There are some good builders still out there... some even build with sprinklers but most are not
Thanks IKEA!
It's all the chemicals everything is treated with now and synthetic materials, compared to older stuff.
This is eye opening
there is no fucking way that you can "fight" the fire on the right side on your own.
Just think about it, 3:40 minutes till the flashover occured. No one has the time for it. You're in panic anyway, plus you're probably trying to get your pets, family member and other stuff out into safety. Would you even remember where your fire extinguisher is? Do you even have one? Is the door closed, and if you open it, is there a chance (obviously) that you get roasted if you open it?
I was thinking that myself. After just 2 minutes your chances of being able to put that fire out on your own look very slim.
rentacow
I live in a wooden house that is over 100 years old. Shit is terrifying.
2 mins?! at 2 mins I could piss it out. At 3 mins its STILL a can job...
@@SwissMarksman At least older houses do better if they have old-school furnishings.
So all the furniture that they make nowadays that says "fire resistant" on it is just lying? Considering how many times I've seen a lit cigarette dropped on furniture and it just goes right out much less reaches flashover in 3 minutes, I find this very difficult to believe .
alot of materials these days are more combustible than the stuff used in old times like the 1980s
What did we learn from this? All those fire-resistant materials required by law ARE CRAP.
in the long run, wouldnt a house made from early 20th century burn more since there is more wood (real wood for that matter) then new homes?
Actual wood isn't easy to catch.
It burns great once it does, but actually getting it to light is very difficult.
todays osb board ( i call chip board and glue) id assume catch easily?
Chemical saturation
@@randomrazr science experement.
Homes in the old days were built with old growth trees/wood which is more solid
I would have thought it would have been the opposite way round. I would have thought that nowadays they would be using more advanced flame retardant materials in things.
lion Heart all the fire retardant stuff manages is to stop a cigarette from igniting it immediately. Which is what you see at the beginning when the new room takes a while to start burning.
Great vid!!!
I'm glad me and my family is moving to a house that was built in 1885.
This is comparing furnishings not build methods or material. You may want to open up a wall or two in that old home of yours. I have seen many that use newspapers and other stuff for insulation.
And make sure there electric (if there is any) is safe as well!
When was this video created?
+whydidthetilda 2009
I thought we had flame-retardant fabrics etc now?
username132 That experiment is probably scare mongering. And plus they used a massive hall to put them 2 rooms next to each other which doesn’t simulate a real life house or an apartment, them rooms were rich in oxygen, probably not much carbon monoxide were produced during them 2 experiments.
And we do have flame retardants.
Brominated treated is a fire retardent. This is wasn't very scientific. Drapes were different. People have much less upholstered furniture than they used too. Google "No, Modern Furniture Is Not Burning 8X Faster In A House Fire". Dieing in a fire is much less than it was....smoke alarms.
We can if we are prepared to pay for the extra cost, which we aren't most of the time. If you go for the cheapest shit at Ikea you really shouldn't expect much in the way safety.
@@glmccready however, when plastics burn, they put off a lot more smoke, which can make it even more dangerous
so isnt modern stuff supposed to be safer? aparently not wtf?
***** Perhaps also that the synthetic materials generate more toxic gases that contribute to heat propagation throughout the room and causes flashover to occur sooner (not to mention that smoke being more dangerous to people or animals caught in it).
synthetics, plastics release highly flammable gases when there's severe heat in the room (from a building fire).. these gases are part of the dark smoke that quickly ignites the room when the temperature and concentration reaches the critical level.
No, the toxic smoke that is released from synthetic materials during a house fire Isn’t more dangerous to your health than toxic smoke released during a house fire from natural materials, synthetic materials release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide during a house fire, but natural materials also release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide as well during a house fire. Also a house fire involving natural materials is also much more likely to smoulder for a very long time before it actually catches flame, and synthetic materials don’t really smoulder for a long time before it catches fire, and a smoulder fire is much more dangerous than a flame fire because a smouldering fire produces much more carbon monoxide than a flame fire.
@@ryandoris6744 When they are small, but when one is engulfing your house, I would say that one is more dangerous
both rooms are Legacy now...
A few thoughts regarding today vs. 30 years ago. 1. There are most certainly fewer fires today than 30 years ago, no? 2. There are more smoke detectors in use, hence quicker detection. 3. Forcible entry tools are not as primitive as 30 years ago, so maybe FD gains access quicker. 4. Universal use of SCBA and bunker gear-get to seat of fire. 5.The presence of Cell phones with alarms being reported sooner. 6. Thermopane windows slowing down self venting/ auto exposure before FD arrival.
Still takes the same amount of time to respond.
No matter it only takes one fire to kill you. With today's materials you have less than three minutes to get out of the house. Your will be unable to be awoken by the smoke detector, get out, call 911, and get firefighters on scene in less than three minutes. Just not gonna happen.
@@joshmarvin5720 Just came across this on a website for the National Safety Council. "Although the number of fire-related deaths has decreased by 46% since 1980, 2020 marks a 23% increase from the record low number of deaths recorded by NFPA in 2012 (2,855). The 2020 civilian fire death toll of 3,500 is 5.5% lower than the 3,704 total in 2019."
Am I the only one not getting any audio from this video?
Calculators don't have mics.
Well that's not good.
the virtue and the hare but its the modern vs the legacy
fuck it im having an 80s living room
Bruh, both look like my grandmas' place. If I lived in a place like that, I would light it on fire
Flashover at 3:22. Scary shit
Did you mean? 3:23
also to add to my earlier post, if this is accurate, why then has so many older houses and stuff been lost over the years compared to newer houses? Seems that evidence shows lack of facts in this video. Granted, compared to old fire techniques to new (horse drawn fire pumps), i can understand, but even within the last 30 years the basics have been reliable, older houses were lost more then newer ones.
They are controlling for one situation. The furnishings. Modern furnishings go up in flame faster. If you put old furnishings in a new house, the new house would burn slower than if you filled it with new furnishings. The age of the house itself, wiring issues and a bunch of other things can lead to older homes catching on fire. Here, they just wanted to test for the furniture.
The point here is that the conditions were the same for both "rooms" except for what is in them.
I know some really old houses in New England used newspapers for insulation.
nice message to IKEA i think
Yet Buiding Science, Architects, Planners, Builders and Society allow Building Product Suppliers to sell these very dangerous products to unsuspecting buyers.
+G Hawirko (StyroHome)
Idiot. You want to pay 10x as much to be "safer" when all you really need to do is be properly cautious in the first place, go ahead. I'll take the risks and save the money.
ok, i cant disagree with the video showing the new furnishings, but my question is this, most "new" furnishings are made to be more fire proof, then the old cotton and wood stuff years ago. Yes with plastics and such now a days this seems to be more dangerous, but I'ld like to know what kind of furniture and stuff was put inside, because if you "stacked" the deck with bad furnishings your tests can be a false positive, and not show accurate fire conditions.
Messiness or even old vs new decorating styles can play a role too.
This is all thanks to the "magic of plastics". :P
Well no shit it took a half an hour, there's a whole side of a wall gone where the heat, and flamable gasses are escaping. In a house, all 4 sides are sealed by a wall, trapping all that heat and gasses inside the room.
TheWaynelds the point is modern houses burn faster and with more smoke.
Which only allows the radiant heat to heat the materials faster and causing quicker flashover.
modern room you are dead...I have all old fashioned furnishings and concrete wall in my apartment
Seems like modern materials shouldn't be made with petroleum, or at least designed in a way to make it harder for the petroleum to burn.
Proving non-fire treated polyurethane foam burns super well is nothing new or a surprise.
Without the open side and infinite ventilation the thick smoke would have kept the fire from growing like it did!!
Many fire departments are using this video as an excuse to never try to go inside since they can't make it to a fire in less than the flash-over in this unrealistic video.
There is no other modern plastic in common use that burns like blown foam polyurethane! Most burn poorly.
Why is something introduced in the 1950s suddenly being used in 2010s as a reason to not fight fires in the interior of structures?????
This video has done a lot of harm!
Hi
anybody got a smoke?
Hey. Everybody WANTED this thing called "deregulation". The commercial entities touted loudly that it would be the "best thing" for people. It was just excuse for commercial interests not to be held responsible for careless/shoddy manufacturing practices.
There was less regulation when the legacy room was made, its just now we buy cheap plastic shit from china, instead of well crafted wooden furniture.
wow
Holy shit.
I think this is a conspiracy 😵
So now we all know who wins.... modern day rooms. not
ikea good bye!