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.

Homeland

Security

EME-2003-CA-0310

Behavioral Mitigation 

of Smoking Fires

Through Strategies Based 

on Statistical Analysis

Homeland

Security
EME-2003-CA-0310

Behavioral Mitigation of Smoking Fires

Through Strategies Based on

Statistical Analysis

Final Project Report for EME-2003-CA-0310

John R. Hall, Jr.

Marty Ahrens

Kimberly Rohr

Sharon Gamache

Judy Comoletti

National Fire Protection Association

February 2006

Homeland

Security



Fires started by lighted tobacco products, principally cigarettes, constitute the leading cause of

residential fire deaths. The U.S. Fire Administrati

(USFA) has partnered with the National Fire Protection

Association (NFPA) “to research what types of behaviors cause smoking fire fatalities and develop sound recommendations for behavioral mitigation strategies to

reduce smoking fire fatalities in the United States....”

The scope of the study included all lighted tobacco

products, but cigarettes account for nearly all

consumption and fires. Lighting implements such 

matches and lighters were not included. Most fir

involving these objects occur during incendiarism

or fireplay, and only a small fraction occur in the

process of lighting cigarettes.

Smoking-material home fire deaths are almost three

times as likely as home fire deaths caused by other

means to involve a victim who was close to the

ignition (29 percent versus 11 percent in 1994 to

1998). Fatal victims of smoking-material fires ar

therefore, less likely than fatal victims of other kinds

of fires to be saved by strategies and technologies

that react after ignition, i.e., fire protection devices.

For many, if not most, of these victims, there is no

substitute for prevention.

Smokers are more likely to have unrelated

impairments, limitations, disabilities, or other

characteristics that can interfere with their response

to fire.This can mean a more serious injury for a

defined level of exposure to fire.

The majority of smoking-material home structure

fires and more than two-thirds of associated deaths

involve trash, mattresses, bedding, or upholstered

furniture as the first ignited item. Both mattress

and upholstered furniture have been the subject

of decades-long requirements, industry-based or

government-based, respectively, to reduce ignitability

by cigarettes. The long-term impact of the

programs can be seen in the rising percentage of fatal

home structure smoking-material fires that begin

with ignition of something other than upholstered

furniture, mattresses, or bedding. That percenta

Executive Summary

was 15 percent in 1980 to 1982, 20 percent in 1990

to 1992, and 29 percent in 2000 to 2002.

The characteristics of an effective ashtray have

been described by many different terms in existing

educational materials, but some of those terms

(e.g., “large”) were judged to be both vague and

potentially inadequate. An ashtray is intended 

provide a safe repository for ashes while a cigarette

is being smoked and a safe temporary repository for

ashes and butts after a cigarette has been smoked.

This will happen if the ashtray minimizes

•	 the likelihood of a lit cigarette falling out of the

ashtray (depth was deemed the most important

feature);

•	 the likelihood of the ashtray itself overturning and

spilling ashes, embers, and butts onto potential

combustibles (“sturdy” was deemed the best

established term for what is needed in such an

ashtray); and

•	 the likelihood of a hostile fire if ashes, embers,

or butts fall outside the protected confines of the

ashtray (a sturdy, hard-to-ignite surface for the

ashtray was deemed the best way to describe what

was needed).

Nearly half of all smoking-material home structure

fires and roughly three-fourths of associated deaths

involve fires that begin in the bedroom, living room,

family room, or den. Most fatal victims were asle

when fatally injured but most fatal smoking-material

home structure fires did not begin in the bedroom.

Available data do not permit calculation of the risk

of fatal cigarette fires relative to time spent smoking,

distinguishing different rooms of a home. There 

some indirect evidence of the relative safety of smoking

outdoors. In 1994 to 1998, in the winter months 

December through February, the rate of deaths per 100

reported smoking-material home structure fires was

much higher--4.9 in December through February and

2.8 in the other months, or 75 percent higher in winter.

Winter is when going outdoors to smoke is most

difficult and, therefore, least likely to happen.
There is some evidence that a message regarding

where to smoke will, in many cases, be seen as

reinforcing established household rules, rather than

reinventing behavior.

Two major Federal-government studies of the

potential risk reduction from a reduced ignitionstrength cigarette reached the following conclusions:

•	 A reduced ignition-strength cigarette is technically

feasible.

•	 A standard test of cigarette ignition strength is

technically feasible.

The smoker whose smoking materials ignited the fire

is the only person present in just over half of fatal

cigarette fires. Even for these 54 percent of case

smokers may not live alone and may be influenced

by others in the behaviors that led to ignition. 

the 46 percent of cases where someone else is

present, it was not known whether those others had

characteristics that would affect their ability to exert

such influence effectively.

One fatal victim in four (24 percent) is not the

smoker whose cigarette started the fire. Therefor

if others are present, they have both a direct and an

indirect stake in taking action to prevent hostile fires

from taking place.

The relationships of these victims to the smokers

is useful to know because it may bear on the

willingness and ability of these others to serve

as “watchers” for the smokers, as well as the

willingness of the smokers to accept help or advice

from these others.

Of the fatal victims who were not the smokers whose

smoking materials ignited the fires:

•	 Thirty-four percent were children of the

smokers (that is, the smokers were the parents

of the victims, but some of these victims were

themselves adults).

•	 Twenty-five percent were neighbors (often from

other apartment units in the same building) or

friends of the smokers.

•	 Fourteen percent were spouses or partners of the

smokers.

•	 Thirteen percent were parents of the smokers.

•	 Fourteen percent had other relationships

(e.g., sibling, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt,

roommate, passerby).

The project recommends the use of four general

messages, two more specific messages for particular

audiences, and a seventh message to be used when

space or time permit. The four general messages a

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.

The two specific messages:

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.

And the seventh message:

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.

These messages have been applied to existing USFA

educational materials (see Appendix E) and are being

adopted into NFPA educational messages as they

come up for routine revision.

The project has developed two PowerPoint®

presentations--one for educators and one for smokers

and others whose behavior we seek to change--to

implement the recommended educational messages

and provide photographs for added clarity. (S

Attachments I and II.)
Table of Contents

Executive Summary .

Table of Contents . 

Introduction .

The U.S. Smoking-Material Fire Problem .

	 Size and Trends of the Fire Problem .

	 There Is No Substitute for Prevention When aVictim is

	 “Intimate With Ignition” .

	 Correlated Characteristics of Smokers Make Effective Response to Fire

	 Less Likely and Serious Consequences From Fire More Likely .

	 	 Impairment by Alcohol or Other Drugs .

	 	 Physical Handicaps or Limitations . 

	 	 Mental or Emotional Handicaps or Limitations . 

	 	 Generally Poor Pre-Existing Health . 

	 	 Use of Medical Oxygen . 

	 	 	 Engaging in Risky Behavior . 

	 	 	 Summary of Points on Correlated Complicating Characteristics . 

	 Summary of Findings on Smoker Behaviors and Related Strategies . 

	 	 Decision to Smoke . 

	 	 What Cigarettes Ignite . 

	 	 Product Choices and the Control of Burning Cigarettes . 

	 	 Where to Smoke . 

	 	 What to Smoke . 

	 	 Smoker Characteristics Related to Product Choice Behaviors . 

	 	 Presence of Others as a Factor in Strategy Design . 

Converting Research Findings into Behavioral Strategies . 

	 	 Making Behavior Change More Likely . 

	 	 What Factual Evidence Needs to Accompany the Educational Message? . 
	 	 What Detailed Guidance Should Accompany the Educational Message? . 

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

	 	 Keeping Messages Short, Simple, and Clear . 

	 	 Would Humorous Messages Work in This Context? . 

	 National Strategies for Implementation of Report Findings . 

	 	 Training and Equipping the Educators . 

	 	 Standardization of Educational Messages . 

	 	 Implementation of Findings Beyond USFA . 

	 	 Future Research . 

References . 

Appendix A--Characteristics of Databases Used in Study . 

Appendix B--Additional Statistics on Characteristics of theVictims of

Smoking-Material Fires Related toVulnerability . 

Appendix C--Additional Information on Smoking and Medical Oxygen . 

Appendix D--Additional Information on Reduced-Ignition-Strength Cigarettes . 

Appendix E--Implementation of Mitigation Strategies Into USFA Public

Fire Safety Education Materials . 


Fires started by lighted tobacco products, principallycigarettes, constitute the leading cause of residential fire deaths. The U.S. FireAdministration (USFA) h

partnered with the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA) “to research what types of behaviors cause

smoking fire fatalities and develop sound recommendations for behavioral mitigation strategies to reduce

smoking fire fatalities in the United States....”

The scope of the study included all lighted tobacco

products, but cigarettes account for nearly all

consumption and fires. Lighting implements such 

matches and lighters were not included. Most fir

involving these objects occur during incendiarism or

fireplay.

An extensive literature review on behaviors related

to smoking, or to fires or fatalities due to smokingmaterial fires was conducted to provide the broadest

possible fact base for recommendations. In additio

data were collected from:

•	 analysis of the 1980 to 2001 U.S. smokingmaterial fire problem, using The National Fire

Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) national

estimates;

•	 analysis of several hundred 1997 to 1998

fatal smoking-material fires, not necessarily

representative but documented in greater detail

in NFPA’s major fires database called the Fire

Incident Data Organization (FIDO);

•	 analysis of other risk factors correlated with

smoking, based on the U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk

Factor database for 2002.

The two detailed fire incident databases used in these

analyses are described below and in slightly more

detail in Appendix A:

NFIRS: This USFA database is the most representative

national fire database, providing detailed information

on individual fires and casualties. Nearly a

national estimates of specific aspects of the U.S. fire

problem begin with NFIRS. About a third of U.

fire departments--working through their respective

States--participate in NFIRS, which receives reports

on an estimated one-third to one-half of each year’s

fires. The NFPA and most other users of NFI

combine it with the NFPA survey to produce the best

“national estimates” of the specific characteristics of

the Nation’s fire problem.

Some important coding information, such as the

victim location code “intimate with ignition,” are

not coding options in NFIRSVersion 5.0, which

applies to 1999 and later data. Therefore, patte

analysis in this report is done using 1994 to 1998

data throughout.

FIDO: Many questions of technical interest requi

a level of detail beyond that available through

NFIRS. For these, the best approach often is to u

exploratory data with sufficient validated detail to be

useful, even if it may not be representative of overall

U.S. fire experience. The largest such databas

excluding proprietary insurance-industry databases,

is NFPA’s FIDO. In 1997 to 1998, FIDO was

up to include all fatal fires. For this project, da

were extracted from 300 qualified 1997 to 1998

incidents, with records on 477 individuals, including

389 deaths.

The development of recommended standard

messages and behaviors was accomplished by the

NFPA Educational Messaging Advisory Committee

(EMAC), a diverse group of educational experts

recently formed to advise the NFPA on educational

messaging across the full range of fire and life safety

education programs.They were provided with a

briefing on the results of this project’s research.

The project also incorporated concepts from a Health

Belief model widely used in public health research

and initiatives. The model is built around six gener

questions:

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, near the end of the project, results were

provided from a parallel effort by Hager Sharp, the

public relations firm, which included a focus group

review of candidate messages related to smoker

behavior. Hager Sharp obtained information 

other source had provided on the likely receptiveness

of smokers to the tested messages and other similar

messages.

A 2005 USFA statistical report--Residential Smoking Fires 

and Casualties--is complete and available at http://

www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i5.

pdf. It provides additional statistical material on t

smoking fire problem.


The U.S. Smoking-Material Fire Problem

Size and Trends of the Fire Problem

Smoking-material structure fires and associated civilian deaths have declined sharply since 1980 (Figure 1),

but smoking materials remain the leading cause of structure fire deaths in the United States. Homes accou

for more than two-thirds of smoking-material structure fires and more than 90 percent of smoking-material

structure fire deaths. Little is lost by focusing on the home portion of the problem. (Any unrefere

statistics are national estimates from NFIRS and the NFPA survey. See Appendix B for more details

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Fires are estimated to the nearest hundred. Figures reflect a proporti

share of structure fires in which the heat source was unknown, and fires involving smoking materials or open flames of unknown

type. From 1999 on, confined trash-receptacle fires--with the heat source not reported because it is not required--have be

proportionally allocated based on 1994 to 1998 heat-source patterns.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surv
 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Deaths are estimated to the nearest ten. Figures reflect a proporti

share of structure fires in which the heat source was unknown, and fires involving smoking materials or open flames of unknown

type. From 1999 on, confined trash-receptacle--fires with the heat source not reported because it is not required--have be

proportionally allocated based on 1994 to 1998 heat-source patterns.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve

The number of smoking-material home structure

fires declined by 63 percent from 1980 to 2002

(Figure 2). The number of smoking-material ho

structure fire deaths declined by 60 percent in the

same period. (See Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix

for deaths and injuries by age and sex.)

More than half of the decline may be attributed to

declines in cigarette consumption. The number 

cigarettes consumed fell by 28 percent from 1987 to

2002.* Nearly all smoking-material fires and loss

involve cigarettes.

* For 1987 and 1988 data, John C. Maxwell, Jr.,The Maxwell Consumer Report: 1988 Year-End Sales Estimates for the Cigarette Industry, Richmond,

Virginia:Wheat First Securities, January 27, 1989; for 1994 to present,Tom Capehart, Tobacco Outlook, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

www.ers.usda.gov, October 6, 2003; and for 1989 to 1993, earlier reports in the Tobacco Situation and Outlook Report series.
U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation 

There Is No Substitute for Prevention 

When a Victim is “Intimate With Ignition”

Smoke alarms, sprinklers, and compartmentation

barriers all require time after ignition to be effective.

For a victim recorded as “intimate with ignition,”

the fire begins so close to him or her that it is very

difficult to survive long enough for active or passive

fire protection to save him or her.

From 1994 through 1998, smoking-material home

fire deaths were almost three times as likely as othercause home fire deaths to involve a victim intimate

with ignition (29 percent versus 11 percent). (S

Table B-3 inAppendix B.)

Being intimate with ignition gives a person minimal

time to react effectively to a threatening fire, and

various conditions reduce a person’s ability to use

whatever time he or she has. The most comm

fatal-victim characteristic with this effect is sleeping

(Figure 3). Smoking ranks first among the 

leading causes of fire in home fire deaths (1994

to 1998) with 23 percent. If you specify that t

victim was sleeping before injury, this rises to 27

percent. (See Table B-4 inAppendix B

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Figures reflect a proportional share of home smoking-material structu

fire deaths in which the victim’s condition before injury was unknown.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve
 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

The heightened risk associated with being intimate

with ignition can be compounded by certain

conditions, activities, or other characteristics. F

example, of the smoking-material home-fire fatal

victims who were intimate with ignition, nearly half

were asleep before injury (45 percent) and most of

the rest were physically or mentally handicapped or

impaired by alcohol or other drugs (44 percent).

(See Table B-5 inAppendix B.) Being asle

compounds the risk from being close to the fire, and

having specific age-related limitations, disabilities, or

impairments compounds that risk even more. F

all smoking-material home-fire fatal victims, roughly

six-tenths (58 percent) were asleep before injury and

roughly three-tenths (29 percent) were physically

or mentally handicapped or impaired by alcohol or

other drugs. (See Table B-6 inAppendix B.) 

percents are higher than for other-cause fire deaths.

Put another way, victims of fatal smoking-material

fires are less likely to have been intimate with ignition

if they were awake and unimpaired (26 percent)

or asleep (23 percent) than if they had a disability

(50 percent for physical handicap, 57 percent for

mental handicap), were restrained (44 percent), were

impaired by alcohol or other drugs (40 percent), or

had the physical and mental limitations associated

with old age (34 percent) (Figure 4).

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Figures reflect a proportional share of home smoking-material structu

fire deaths, for each victim condition before injury, in which the victim location was unknown.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve
U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation 

The link between smoking and sleeping is even

stronger if the fire started because someone fell

asleep when he or she should have been supervising

a heat source. When ignition factor was coded 

falling asleep, three-fourths of the fatal home fires

in 1994 to 1998 were smoking-material fires. (S

Table B-4 inAppendix B.) (The majority of the re

were cooking fires.) And when falling asleep is t

reason a fire started, it is not surprising if the smoker

is intimate with that ignition and at very high risk of

fatal injury. For smoking-material home fires whe

falling asleep was coded as the ignition factor, 41

percent of fatal victims were intimate with ignition,

compared to 29 percent of fatal victims of smokingmaterial fires generally and 23 percent of all sleeping

fatal victims of smoking-material fires. (See Figu

B-1 in Appendix B.)

As discussed, a fire that begins very close to a person

requires very little time to grow large enough to cause a

fatal injury, unless the ignited materials are designed to

burn slowly. There is no compartmentation separati

person from fire, so compartmentation does not help.

Even if a smoke alarm should activate before a person

is fatally injured, the statistics just presented show 44

percent of fatal intimate-with-ignition victims have

some serious condition--a disability or impairment--

that would make a successful escape attempt unlikely

in the very short time available. In addition, in ord

to activate, a fire sprinkler requires more severe fire

conditions at the ceiling than a smoke alarm does. 

a result, even though the sprinkler will provide more

direct and immediate protection, not requiring any

action on the occupant’s part to save himself or herself,

it is doubtful that an intimate-with-ignition victim will

be saved by a sprinkler.

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Figures reflect a proportional share of home smoking-material structu

fires with item first ignited unknown.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve
 Behavioral Mitigation of SMoking fireS

However, one possible exception to the seeming

inevitability of fatal injury when fire begins close to

the person is when the fire involves materials that

are designed to burn slowly. These materials, such 

slower-burning upholstered furniture or mattresses,

allow more time for some type of protective action

to be taken, despite the close proximity of a fire to a

potential victim.

Most fatal smoking-material home fires begin with

ignition of upholstered furniture, a mattress or

bedding, or clothing (Figure 5). These items accou

for 80 percent of all smoking-material home fire

deaths and 85 percent of such deaths when the victim

is intimate with ignition. (See Table B-7 inAppend

B.) Within these groups, the relative importance 

clothing and mattress or bedding is greater for the

intimate-with-ignition victims than for all victims.

Since the 1960’s, there have been regulations or

industry programs designed to provide better ignition

resistance to cigarettes and slower fire development

for upholstered furniture and mattresses. As o

might expect, the share of smoking-material home

fire deaths involving initial ignition of upholstered

furniture, mattress, or bedding has declined from

five out of six in the early 1980’s to three out of four

in the late 1990’s. (See Table B-8 inAppendix B

These initiatives are part of the reason for the decline

in overall smoking-material home fire deaths.

The largest share of fatal home smoking-material fire

victims intimate with ignition are in the living room,

family room, or den (44 percent) compared with

the bedroom (42 percent), although the bedroom

share is larger than for all home smoking-material

fire deaths (42 percent versus 36 percent). Note al

that the kitchen share is larger for intimate-withignition fire deaths, suggesting that cigarettes are

being dropped on the victim’s clothing outside the

bedroom (Figure 6).

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agencie

industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced heavily by

inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Figures reflect a proportional share of home smoking-material structure fires 

which area of fire origin unknown.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve
U.S. fire adMiniStration / national fire PrOTECtion aSSociation 

From 1994 to 1998, fatal victims of smoking-related

home fires whose activity when injured was sleeping

were roughly 10 times as likely as sleeping victims of

fires due to other causes to be intimate with ignition

(30 percent versus 3 percent). (See Table B-9 

Appendix B.) (The 30 percent for victims who

activity when injured was sleeping differs from the

23 percent cited earlier for victims whose condition

before injury was sleeping.)

All of these findings support the general conclusion

that fatal victims of smoking-material fires are less likely

than fatal victims of other kinds of fires to be saved by

strategies and technologies that react after ignition,

i.e., fire protection provisions. For many if not most 

these victims, there is no substitute for prevention.

Correlated Characteristics of Smokers 

Make Effective Response to Fire Less 

Likely and Serious Consequences From 

Fire More Likely

Smokers in general, smokers who have fires, and

smokers who are fatally injured in fires, all are more

likely to have unrelated impairments, limitations,

disabilities, or other characteristics that can interfere

with their response to fire or can result in a more

serious injury for a defined level of exposure to fire

effects. (See Tables B-10 and B-11 inAppendix B f

more statistics on these characteristics.)

These characteristics do not point to particular

smoker behaviors that should be modified on the

grounds of reducing risk of fire death. Howeve

they all point to behaviors that, if modified, would

result in less risk of harm. In addition, all of the

characteristics increase the need for some more

effective means of avoiding cigarette fires and

associated casualties.

Impairment by Alcohol or Other Drugs

•	 According to NFIRS national estimates for 1994

to 1998, fatal victims of home smoking-material

fires are more likely than victims of other fatal

home fires to be impaired by alcohol or other

drugs (15 percent versus 7 percent). (See Tab

B-6 inAppendix B.) It is known that NFIRS ten

to under-report alcohol and drug impairment.

•	 Three special studies, designed to use bloodalcohol tests to provide a more complete and

accurate estimate of alcohol impairment in fatal

fire victims, consistently found much higher

rates of alcohol involvement in victims of fires in

general and in smoking-related fires in particular.

They cited alcohol as a factor in smoking-related

fire deaths in almost half the deaths in London,

UK, in 1996 to 2000; almost half the deaths in

Tallahassee, FL, in 1983 to 1994; and 62 percent

of the deaths in Minnesota in 1996 to 2002.1,2,3

•	 Fatal victims who were also the smokers whose

cigarettes started the fires are much more likely

to have been impaired than fatal victims who

were not those smokers. According to FIDO, 

percent of the deaths of smokers whose smoking

material ignited the fire involved alcohol or other

drug use as a factor. Specifically, those deat

consisted of 41 percent alcohol only, 3 percent

other drugs only, and 3 percent alcohol and other

drugs. Alcohol or other drug use was cited f

10 percent of the nonsmoker deaths, and all were

alcohol-only. (Tables B-12 to B-15 inAppend

B contain a listing of tallies of the FIDO cases

by combinations of characteristics. Table B-

has the particular listings used to calculate these

percentages.)

•	 While alcohol and other drugs can have a strong

soporific effect (i.e., causing drowsiness), many

fatal victims of smoking-material fires appear

to have been drowsy even apart from the effects

of alcohol. According to FIDO (see Table B-

inAppendix B), 26 percent of smoker deaths

involved alcohol and evidence of sleepiness

independent of alcohol effects, as did 6 percent of

nonsmoker deaths.

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as those

who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their

lifetimes were more likely than nonsmokers to have

consumed five or more alcoholic drinks at one

occasion (29 percent versus 19 percent). The

smokers also averaged one more drink per occasion

than nonsmokers (3.72 versus 2.78 drinks per

occasion). These statistics indicate that smoke

are more likely than nonsmokers to have alcoholimpaired judgment and ability when they drink.
•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were slightly less

likely than nonsmokers to have had more than

five drinks on an occasion (40 percent versus 41

percent), but they still averaged 1/3 to 1/2 more

drinks per occasion than nonsmokers (4.76 versus

4.34 drinks per occasion).

Physical Handicaps or Limitations

•	 In 1994 to 1998, according to NFIRS national

estimates, fatal victims of home smoking-material

fires were more likely than victims of other fatal

home fires to be physically handicapped (13

percent versus 7 percent), but less likely to have

the physical and mental limitations associated

with old age (2 percent versus 3 percent). (S

Table B-6 inAppendix B.) Until recently, howeve

fire departments could not report multiple

conditions of victims to NFIRS. As a resul

the extent of these disabilities and age-related

limitations most likely are understated.

•	 According to FIDO (see Table B-14 inAppendix

B), 30 percent of smoker deaths involved

physical disabilities not related to age or physical

limitations related to age. Specifically, the

deaths consisted of 15 percent physical disabilities

only and 15 percent physical limitations only. 

similar 28 percent of nonsmoker deaths involved

these disabilities and limitations. Specificall

nonsmoker deaths consisted of 5 percent physical

disabilities only, 22 percent physical limitations

due to age only, and 1 percent both physical

disabilities and age-related physical limitations.

•	 A 2001 study of teenagers found 31 percent

of those who were mobility-impaired smoked

compared to 20 percent of a comparison group

without handicaps or limitations.4

•	 According to the CDC, smokers who have smoked

at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes were more

likely than nonsmokers to have the following

potentially mobility-related physical handicaps or

limitations:

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%

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were more likely

than nonsmokers to have the following physical

handicaps or limitations:

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

•	 In 1994 to 1998, according to NFIRS national

estimates, fatal victims of home smoking-material

fires were less likely than victims of other home

fatal fires to be mentally handicapped (1 percent

versus 2 percent) or to have the physical and mental

limitations associated with old age (2 percent versus

3 percent). (SeeTable B-6 inAppendix B.) U

recently, however, fire departments could not report

multiple conditions of victims to NFIRS. As a resul

the extent of disabilities and age-related limitations

most likely are understated.
•	 According to FIDO (see Table B-14 inAppendix

B), 3 percent of smoker deaths involved mental

handicaps not related to age or mental limitations

related to age. Specifically, these deaths consist

of 2 percent mental disabilities only and 1 percent

mental limitations only. A similar 4 percent 

nonsmoker deaths involved these handicaps or

limitations. Specifically, these nonsmoker deat

consisted of 1 percent mental disabilities only and

3 percent mental limitations due to age only.

•	 A 2001 study of teenagers found 33 percent of

those who were emotionally disabled and 27

percent of those who were learning-disabled

smoked compared to 20 percent of a comparison

group without handicaps or limitations.4

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as those

who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their

lifetimes were more likely than nonsmokers to

report that their mental health had not been good

for at least 1 day in the past 30 days (33.5 percent

versus 29.3 percent).

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were more likely

than nonsmokers to report that their mental

health had not been good for at least 1 day in the

past 30 days (41.1 percent versus 39.8 percent).

Generally Poor Pre-Existing Health

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as those

who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their

lifetimes were more likely than nonsmokers to

have the following physical conditions that could

make them more susceptible to harm from a

defined exposure to fire effects:

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%

•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were more likely

than nonsmokers to have the following physical

conditions that could make them more susceptible

to harm from a defined exposure to fire effects:

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

•	 Multiple studies document growing recognition of

special problems posed by people who continue

to smoke while under treatment with medical

oxygen. For example, from March 3, 1999, 

November 30, 2000, 12 oxygen-therapy fires in

Philadelphia caused three deaths and injured seven

others. In addition, in a November 2003 safe

brochure, the Massachusetts Office of the State Fire

Marshal reported that “Since 1997, 16 people have

died and 20 other individuals have suffered severe

burns or smoke inhalation in fires involving people

who were smoking while using home oxygen

systems.” (See Appendix C for a more detail

review of these studies and their findings.)

•	 Most ongoing fire incident databases do not provide

for reporting of medical oxygen as a factor. Howeve

data contained in FIDO (seeTable B-14 inAppendix

B) revealed that 7 percent of fatal victims who were

the smokers whose smoking material ignited the fire

were under treatment with medical oxygen.

Engaging in Risky Behavior

•	 According to the CDC,smokers defined as those who

have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes

were more likely than nonsmokers to not always have

used a seatbelt when driving or riding (25.5 percent

versus 19.7 percent). In addition, these smoke

were more likely than nonsmokers to have driven

after drinking (4.4 percent versus 2.9 percent).
•	 According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were more likely

than nonsmokers to have not always used a

seatbelt when driving or riding (30.4 percent

versus 25.4 percent). However, these smoke

were less likely than nonsmokers to have driven

after drinking (5.8 percent versus 6.8 percent).

Summary of Points on Correlated

Complicating Characteristics

Many of these characteristics make it more difficult

and less likely that smoker behavior can be modified

effectively to improve safety. For example, a pers

impaired by drugs or alcohol probably is less likely

to act effectively in accordance with learned safer

behavior. A person with disabilities is less likely to 

able to so act. A person who tends to engage in ris

behaviors generally is less likely to be susceptible to

behavior change to reduce one particular risk.

Therefore, this set of findings, in combination

with the earlier findings regarding the large share

of victims who are intimate with ignition, has the

following implications for strategy selection:

•	 For many fatal victims of smoking-material fires,

protection strategies that operate after ignition are

unlikely to be successful. Prevention strategi

need to be emphasized for these fires.

•	 The smokers whose actions and omissions led

to fatal smoking-material fires are more likely to

have significant barriers to behavior change than

the individuals who are involved with other types

of fatal fires. Therefore, strategies that modi

cigarettes and/or the commonly first ignited

objects (e.g., upholstered furniture, mattress,

bedding, clothing) need to be included in an

effective program to reduce risk of death due to

smoking-material fire.

•	 One of the seven educational messages

recommended from this project is intended to

address the heightened risks associated with

several of the following characteristics that

adversely affect alertness:

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.

•	 The EMAC that developed the recommended

messages agreed that the emerging problem of

smoking and medical oxygen needs to have a

separate message focused on it, which can be used in

situations where the use of medical oxygen is likely:

Smoking should not be allowed in a home 

where oxygen is used.

Summary of Findings on Smoker 

Behaviors and Related Strategies

Decision to Smoke

The decision to smoke or to smoke regularly is

correlated with (a) other risk-increasing behaviors

(e.g., drinking, use of other drugs); (b) stress; (c)

early addiction; and (d) several clusters of conditions

that could be expected to create stress.4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12

Identified clusters include the following:

•	 personal experience with violence, as a victim,

close relative of a victim, or victimizer;

•	 poor relationship with parents (e.g., lack of

parental support, lack of parental presence

before and/or after school, lack of activities with

parents, single-parent household, lack of family

connectedness);

•	 poor situation at school, either poor relationships

generally, poor performance generally (e.g.,

repeating a grade, low grade point average), or

personal limitations (e.g., emotional, learning,

or mobility disabilities) that could make

school difficult both for learning and for social

relationships; and

•	 attitudinal strength characteristics, including lack

of self-esteem, lack of religiosity, and belief in

early death.

It is possible that the other risk-increasing behaviors

are not causes of smoking but are correlated results of

the same cause that leads to smoking, e.g., willingness

to accept risk in activities that give pleasure or taking

pleasure from risk itself.

Smokers also are more likely to underestimate what

the risk is, and teenage smokers are more likely to

discount risks whose consequences are many years

away.13 Many assume that they will not experien
the uncertain negative outcomes. One successf

antismoking program in Australia used the phrase

“every cigarette is doing you damage” to encourage

audiences to think of the risk as immediate.14,15

Teenage smokers are more likely than teenage

nonsmokers to be angry. Successful antismoki

campaigns in Florida, California, and Massachusetts

channel the anger of teenage smokers toward

tobacco companies, based on the latter’s alleged

manipulation of teenagers through targeted

marketing and alleged dishonesty and callousness

regarding the health effects of cigarettes.13,16

Smokers tend to value freedom to smoke over risks

to themselves but can regard risks to nonsmokers

(e.g., secondhand smoke) as an effective argument

against smoking.17

The decision to smoke is part of the sequence of

smoker behaviors that can lead to a fire. This bri

synopsis of results of antismoking programs focuses

on findings related to smoker characteristics that

could be useful in designing strategies for changing

smoker behaviors to prevent fires. However, 

was considered outside the scope of the project

to develop strategies focused specifically on the

decision to smoke. It was further determined, bas

on focus group research by Hager Sharp, the public

relations firm, in another project funded by USFA,

that strategies to change smoker behaviors would be

more accepted by smokers if they did not appear to

be intended to curtail smoking.18

Consequently, none of the recommended behaviors

and associated educational messages are meant to

address the decision to smoke, but by the same

token, none are phrased so as to appear to endorse or

explicitly accept the decision to smoke.

What Cigarettes Ignite

The majority of smoking-material home structure

fires (55 percent in 1999 to 2001) and more than

two-thirds of associated deaths (71 percent in 1999

to 2001) involve trash, mattress or bedding, or

upholstered furniture as the item first ignited

(Figure 7). Trash is a major contributor only to fi

incidents and not to fatal fires.

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Deaths are estimated to the nearest one. Figures reflect a proporti

share of home structure smoking-material fires with item first ignited unknown. Figures do not include adjustment for fires cod

as unclassified or unknown-type open flame or smoking-material or for confined fires.

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve
Both mattresses and upholstered furniture have

been the subject of decades-long requirements,

industry-based or government-based, respectively,

to reduce ignitability by cigarettes. The long-te

impact of these programs can be seen in the rising

percentage of fatal home structure smoking-material

fires that begin with ignition of something other

than upholstered furniture, mattresses, or bedding.

That percentage was 15 percent in 1980 to 1982, 20

percent in 1990 to 1992, and 29 percent in 2000 to

2002.

Product Choices and the Control of 

Burning Cigarettes

There are limits to the cigarette resistance one can

build into potential items first ignited. When tho

limits are reached, two alternatives are to change

the cigarette itself (discussed later) and to improve

practices that keep the lit cigarette and potential

items first ignited apart. Ashtrays are intended to 

used to achieve that separation.

The characteristics of an effective ashtray have

been described by many different terms in existing

educational materials, but some of those terms

(e.g., “large”) were judged to be both vague and

potentially inadequate. An ashtray is intended 

provide a safe repository for ashes while a cigarette

is being smoked and a safe temporary repository for

ashes and butts after a cigarette has been smoked.

This will happen if the ashtray minimizes

•	 the likelihood of a lit cigarette falling out of the

ashtray (depth was deemed the most important

feature);

•	 the likelihood of the ashtray itself overturning and

spilling ashes, embers and butts onto potential

combustibles (“sturdy” was deemed the best

established term for what is needed in such an

ashtray); and

•	 the likelihood of a hostile fire if ashes, embers,

or butts fall outside the protected confines of the

ashtray (a sturdy, hard-to-ignite surface for the

ashtray was deemed the best way to describe what

was needed).

Neither literature nor data could be found on the

relative frequency of smokers’ practices regarding ash

disposal or butt disposal, whether fire ensued or not,

or on the time required for butts and ashes, left alone

but not actively dowsed, to become safe for disposal

into ordinary trash containers. Therefore, it was n

possible to determine the importance of dowsing as

part of a responsible smoker’s routine.

Two educational messages developed for this project

address behaviors related to effective use of ashtrays

and effective techniques for disposal of cigarettes

after smoking:

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.

The second message emphasizes the need for safe

disposal and cites dowsing as a preferred method but

leaves flexibility as to the choice of means.

Where to Smoke

Nearly half of all smoking-material home structure

fires and roughly three-fourths of associated deaths

involve fires that begin in the bedroom or the living

room, family room, or den.
Home Structure Fires Ignited by Smoking Materials

Annual Averages 1999 to 2001, by Area of Origin

Area of Fire Origin Fires

Civilian 

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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Fires are shown to the nearest hundred, deaths and injuries to t

nearest ten, and property damage, unadjusted for inflation, to the nearest million dollars. Figures reflect a proportional share 

home structure smoking-material fires where the item first ignited is unknown. Figures do not include adjustment for fires coded 

unclassified or unknown-type open flame or smoking material or for confined fires. Totals may not equal sums because of roundin

Source: NFIRS and NFPA surve

Available data do not permit calculation of the risk

of fatal cigarette fires relative to time spent smoking,

distinguishing different rooms of a home. Therefor

although it is rare for fatal home smoking fires to begin

in such rooms as the kitchen (3 percent) or bathroom

(1 percent), it is not possible to say that an hour spent

smoking in those rooms carries less risk than an hour

spent smoking in the bedroom or living room.

There is some indirect evidence of the relative safety

of smoking outdoors. In 1994 to 1998, in t

months of December through February, the rate of

deaths per 100 reported smoking-material home

structure fires was much higher--4.9 in December

through February and 2.8 in the other months, or

75 percent higher in winter. Winter is when goi

outdoors to smoke is most difficult and, therefore,

least likely to happen.

Based on this evidence, one of the principal

educational messages focuses on where people smoke:

If you smoke, smoke outside. 

Because some may be concerned over smoker

resistance to this behavior change, it is useful to note

evidence that, in many cases, rules like these may

actually be seen as reinforcing established household

rules rather than reinventing behavior.
•	 According to the CDC, approximately half (53

percent) of smokers defined as those who have

smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes

have rules against indoor smoking at home, while

four out of five (81 percent) nonsmokers have such

rules. Furthermore, 15 percent of smokers and

percent of nonsmokers have rules limiting where

or when smoking is permitted inside the home.

•	 According to the CDC, approximately one-fourth

(27 percent) of smokers defined as everyday

or someday smokers have rules against indoor

smoking at home, while approximately half

(52 percent) of nonsmokers have such rules.

Furthermore, 24 percent of smokers and 22

percent of nonsmokers have rules limiting where

or when smoking is permitted inside the home.

•	 Rules on where to smoke were more common

when children and a nonsmoking partner were

present.17

The Philadelphia (PA) Fire Department has an

innovative outreach program centered on this

message. One of their firefighters, Rodney JeanJacques, doubles as a hip hop artist under the na

of Cal Akbar. He has developed a song and vid

titled Take It Outside. More information is availab

from Lt. Michael Grant of the Fire Prevention

Division (e-mail michael.grant@phila.gov).

What to Smoke

As discussed, there are limits to the cigarette

resistance one can build into potential items first

ignited. When those limits are reached, anoth

alternative is to change the cigarette itself. Two maj

Federal-government studies of the potential risk

reduction from a reduced ignition-strength cigarette

reached the following conclusions:

•	 A reduced ignition-strength cigarette is technically

feasible.

•	 A standard test of cigarette ignition strength

is technically feasible. (A standard test w

developed by ASTM Committee E05, Fire

Standards, and approved in 2002 as ASTM

E2187. The name of the organization is now ju

the initials,ASTM, which originally stood for

American Society for Testing and Materials.)

See Appendix D for a more detailed and referenced

discussion of this issue.

For several years, smokers have been able to purchase

cigarettes with banded paper, a technology shown to

produce reduced ignition strength without higher

costs or adverse side effects (such as higher toxicity).

However, availability has been limited, as has

publicity, and brand loyalty remains a powerful factor

in smoker choice. It is not yet possible to identi

factors in the decisions of smokers to select or avoid

reduced-ignition-strength cigarettes. Therefor

the project developed a recommended educational

message that simply draws attention to the existence

and effectiveness of the technology:

If you smoke, choose fire-safe* cigarettes. They are 

less likely to cause fires.

Smoker Characteristics Related to 

Product Choice Behaviors

Several parts of the analysis pointed to product

choice behaviors that could significantly reduce

risk. These include the choice of reduced ignitionstrength cigarettes, the choice of more cigaretteresistant upholstered furniture and mattresses, a

even the choice of better ashtrays and more suitable

furnishings on which to place those ashtrays.

*The cigarettes in question are not really “fire-safe” in the

implied absolute sense, and places like NewYork State, which

have adopted or considered requirements for reduced ignition

strength are careful to avoid the term “fire-safe.” Therefore, 

may be desirable to revisit the wording of this message.
While most involve features not found as much

or at all in older products, none of these product

choices appear to involve higher costs. Howeve

according to the CDC risk factor database, smoking is

correlated with poverty and with lower educational

achievement. These two factors could hinder a

attempt to redirect product choices and make it more

likely that old products, made before features of

greater safety were required or invented, will be in

place. For example, poor households may be mo

likely to purchase used products and avoid replacing

old products that are still serviceable.

According to the CDC, smokers defined as those who

have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes

were more likely than nonsmokers to have less than

a high school education (13.2 percent versus 9.4

percent) and to have household income of less than

$20,000 per year (22.6 percent versus 19.3 percent).

According to the CDC, smokers defined as

everyday or someday smokers were more likely

than nonsmokers to have less than a high school

education (16.5 percent versus 11.5 percent) and

to have household income of less than $20,000 per

year (27.4 percent versus 24.2 percent)

Presence of Others as a Factor in 

Strategy Design

Some strategies to change smoker behaviors or the

consequences of those behaviors depend on the

influence of other persons with regard to whether,

what, where, when, and how to smoke. In additio

they can provide and help maintain an environment

that is more forgiving of stray cigarette butts and

ashes.

According to FIDO, the smoker whose smoking

materials ignited the fire was the only person present

in just over half (54 percent) of fatal cigarette fires.

In these fires, however, smokers may not have lived

alone and may have been influenced by others.

According to FIDO, one fatal victim in four (24

percent) is not the smoker whose cigarette started the

fire. Therefore, if others are present, they have both

direct and an indirect stake in taking action to prevent

hostile fires from taking place. These victims a

present in some types of rooms more than others:

•	 When fire began in the bedroom, only one of

every nine victims (11 percent) with known

location were not the smokers whose smoking

began the fire.

•	 When fire began in the living room, family 

room, or den, nearly one-third of victims (31

percent) with known location were not the

smokers whose smoking began the fire.

•	 When fire began in any other room or area, more

than one-fourth of victims (28 percent) with

known location were not the smokers whose

smoking began the fire.

The relationships of these victims to the smokers

are useful to know, as the relationships may bear

on the victims’ willingness and ability to serve as

“watchers” for the smokers. The relationships al

may bear on the willingness of the smokers to accept

help or advice from these others. According to FID

the following statistics describe the relationships to

the smokers of the fatal victims who were not those

smokers:

•	 Thirty-four percent had the smokers as parents

(not all the victims were under age 18);

•	 Twenty-five percent were neighbors(often from other

apartment units in the same building) or friends;

•	 Fourteen percent were spouses or partners;

•	 Thirteen percent were parents of the smokers; and

•	 Fourteen percent had other relationships

(e.g., sibling, niece or nephew, uncle or aunt,

roommate, passerby).

The spouses, partners, and parents (one-fourth of

the total when combined) are reasonably likely to be

present in the home most of the time. This mea

they are likely to be present in the home most of

the time and, as a result, would be available to act in

support of the safety of the household from smokingmaterial fires. Also, as spouse, parent, or partner, th

are likely to have some influence on the behavior 

their partners or children who are smokers.

The children (one-third of the total) are also

reasonably likely to be present but may be less

able and willing to influence their smoker parents.

The other victims (two-fifths of the total when
combined) are unlikely to be present to provide such

influence and lack the kind of close relationship that

would make such influence seem appropriate.

According to FIDO, 2 percent of total fatal victims

were transients who were not legal occupants of the

structures in which the fire began. These might 

the smokers or others. This would be a particular

difficult group to educate in safer behaviors.

According to FIDO, fatal victims who were not

the smoker whose cigarette started the fire (onefourth of total victims) are much less likely to have

been in the room where the fire began, let alone

close enough to the point of fire origin to be called

“intimate with ignition.”

•	 Of the children killed by smoking-related fires, 14

percent were killed in a living room, family room,

or den, always by a fire that began in the same room.

The other 86 percent were killed in a bedroom,

always by a fire that began in a

different room. That differe

room was usually the living room,

family room, or den.

•	 Of the neighbors and friends

killed by smoking-related fires,

20 percent were killed in a living

room, family room, or den by a

fire that began in the same room.

None of the other 80 percent

were killed in the room where fire began.

•	 Of the spouses and partners killed by smokingrelated fires, only 22 percent were killed in the

room where fire began. That room was t

bedroom for half of those victims (11 percent

of all spouse and partner victims) and the living

room, family room, or den for the other half.

•	 Of the parents of smokers killed by smokingrelated fires, none were killed in the room where

fire began.

•	 Only 13 percent of all nonsmoker fatal victims

combined were injured in the room where the

fire began. For that 13 percent of victims, t

room where the fire began and they were fatally

injured was nearly always a living room, family

room, or den.

•	 Therefore, 87 percent of all nonsmoker fatal

victims were injured in a different room from the

room where fire began.

The statistics cited in this section have some

implications for behavioral strategies:

•	 The majority of smoker victims had no one else in

the housing unit when they were fatally injured.

•	 For those smokers who had someone else present,

our only detailed information is on those others

who were also fatal victims.

•	 Based on their relationships to the smokers, many

of those others were unlikely to be present much

of the time (e.g., neighbors, friends) and some

might have difficulty in influencing the smoker.

•	 Most of the nonsmoker victims were not in a

position to see the fire start. To act as “watchers

they would have to take some kind of proactive

action, not just maintain a

heightened alertness to fire

outbreaks.

One of the recommended

educational messages focuses

on proactive actions like

checking for butts and ashes

after smoking has taken

place. This is a behavior th

nonsmokers can do as easily

as smokers, and if nonsmokers

are less likely than smokers to have been drinking,

as the CDC database suggests, then nonsmokers may

be a more reliable and available group to focus this

message on:

Check under furniture cushions and in other places 

people smoke for cigarette butts that may have 

fallen out of sight.

Victims who are not fatally injured in the room

where fire begins also are more likely to be savable

by fire protection--working smoke alarms, fire

sprinklers, compartmentation--because they tend

to be farther from the fire and so have time for fire

protection features and systems to work. This mea

the nonsmoker victims are more savable by these

means than the smoker victims.
Converting Research Findings into Behavioral Strategies

The research findings characterized the size and

characteristics of the smoking-material fire problem.

Most of these findings were useful in helping define

what behaviors needed to change in order to reduce

the smoking-material fire problem. However, t

findings did not indicate what specific behaviors

would be the best choices to target as the new

behaviors by smokers and those around them.

NFPA’s new EMAC was created to provide a diverse

and knowledgeable volunteer base for consensus

recommendations on educational messaging. 

day was set aside for them to develop and agree on

messages, with the research findings as input.

The project recommends the use of four general

messages, two more specific messages for particular

audiences, and a seventh message to be used when

space or time permit. The four general messages a

as follows:

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.

The two specific messages:

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.

And the seventh message:

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.

One of the principles used by the EMAC was that

behavioral-change messages are more likely to be

accepted and acted upon if they are stated positively

(“do this”) rather than negatively (“don’t do this”).

For the last message shown above, this principle

required a bit of a stretch in which the main

message, stated positively, was also rather general.

The second sentence contained detail necessary for

clarity. That detail was unavoidably negative in for

but the sentence was phrased as an embellishment

of a positive message rather than as a negative,

imperative statement.

Making Behavior Change More Likely 

The research findings did not identify any strong

results that would point to best strategies to try

to change behaviors in the directions selected by

the EMAC. Instead, the project team reviewed t

six questions in a popular model of health belief

formation for their implications.18 The project team

also drew insight from focus group work with

smokers in a parallel project conducted for the USFA

by Hager Sharp.19

What Factual Evidence Needs to Accompany 

the Educational Message?

The first question in the Health Belief model asks

about the target individual’s existing assessment of

likelihood of harm targeted by the strategies, which

in this context would be the experience of having

a smoking-related fire and especially suffering an

injury, particularly a fatal injury, in such a fire. T

second question asks about the target individual’s

assessment of the seriousness of such harm.
Hager Sharp found that smokers and nonsmokers

were unaware of the fire losses. However, Hag

Sharp found no resistance to the idea that nearly

1,000 fire deaths a year was very serious.

Hager Sharp also found that smokers tend to believe

they are aware of the rules of fire-safe smoking

behavior, and there was a clear suggestion that many

smokers therefore believe that their own probability

of fire loss is less than the national loss figures would

suggest.

Teenagers considering whether to smoke tend not to

be influenced by long-term health considerations.

The NFPA EMAC, which developed the

recommended educational messages around which

our strategies are organized, also recommended that

facts about the size and severity of the smokingmaterial fire problem be communicated with the 

educational messages. 

When assembling such a fact summary, there are

choices to be made on what types and examples of

harm to emphasize. A case for high severity mig

emphasize any or all of the following:

•	 very serious nonfatal injuries (where the longterm costs of care and the disfiguring nature of

the injuries may give them even more impact than

deaths);

•	 very broad definitions of relevant injuries (e.g.,

unreported injuries);

•	 very broad definitions of smoking-related fires

(e.g., fires involving lighting implements but not

smoking); and

•	 very inclusive calculations of the costs of injuries

(e.g., including pain and suffering as monetized

in tort litigation).

However, it is possible to create a backlash by making

the problem of concern appear too terrible. Studi

of effective strategies in safety education not limited

to fire safety have concluded that images of serious

harm can induce a coping reaction of avoiding the

images rather than changing the targeted behavior.

Our recommended approach emphasizes the use of

the core facts in plain form.

What Detailed Guidance Should Accompany the 

Educational Message?

It is recommended that the educational messages be

written to provide additional information on how to

be careful with cigarettes.

For example, smokers may assume they know the

importance of using ashtrays to control burning

cigarettes safely, but they may be open to information

on the kinds of ashtrays (i.e., deep, sturdy) to

use and the ways to use them (e.g., on a sturdy

foundation that will not burn).

Additionally, smokers may assume they know the

importance of not dropping cigarette butts or ashes

onto or into soft furnishings, but they may be

open to the idea of a confirmatory check on those

furnishings to make sure.

This argues for the use of pictures (e.g., good versus

bad ashtrays, where and how to look for butts or

ashes) in materials disseminating the messages.

What Side Effects Could Be of Concern for the 

Recommended Strategies?

One of the Health Benefit model questions has to do

with the target audience’s perception of adverse side

effects from a recommended strategy.

A number of adverse side effects have been alleged

for the reduced-ignition-strength cigarette. The

claims and refutations of these claims have been

playing out in testimony about proposed bills to

require exclusive use of such cigarettes. Append
D has a bit more information on the types of side

effects being cited.

One of our behavioral strategy recommendations is

to move most home smoking outdoors. Changi

where or how one smokes while at home means

giving up the comfort of a familiar experience and

thinking consciously about risks and safety more

of the time. These could be perceived as adver

side effects. Smoking outdoors may mean a le

comfortable environment (not climate controlled)

and less opportunity to socialize with others

who are not smoking, to use the entertainment

equipment of the home, and so forth. For all the

reasons, we predict that the effort to move outdoors

will encounter resistance, and we include that

recommendation primarily because the CDC risk

factor database indicates that a large percentage of

smokers already follow such rules in their homes.

Keeping Messages Short, Simple, and Clear

Hager Sharp found resistance to such terms of art

as “abandon,” “extinguish,” and “discard.” All 

these are terms that could slip through the usual

education filter of avoiding words with more than

three syllables.

This consideration was a reason for keeping the

number of messages down to seven and identifying

just four messages as primary messages for all

audiences.

Would Humorous Messages Work in 

This Context?

Hager Sharp explored the use of humor in messages

as a means of reducing resistance from smokers.

Hager Sharp found humor was well received, but one

person’s humor can be another person’s disrespect.

Humor always has a target, and it is not clear what

would constitute a safe but effective target for humor

in this context.

For example, consider the messages with humor that

Hager Sharp tested:

“Don’t get in bed with a butt.”

“Don’t barbecue in bed. Don’t smoke either; it’s ju

as deadly.”

The first message relies on double entendre. The

are people who have problems with humor based on

veiled sexual references, even when it is as mild as

this sample.

The second message relies on analogy. Very f

analogies are universally convincing or even

understood, and some can be distracting.

The history of advertising is replete with humortinged ads that were widely enjoyed but not

particularly effective in changing behavior,

specifically, increasing purchases. Humor that fai

can well be worse than no humor at all.

This project does not recommend the use of humor

in formulating messages for this fire problem.

National Strategies for Implementation 

of Report Findings

See Appendix E for the application of the recommended messages to existing USFA educational

materials.

The implementation of the project results should

be pursued through integration of the messages

into established public fire safety programs and

campaigns.

Training and Equipping the Educators

Two PowerPoint® presentations have been developed

from the project results. The first such presentati

is targeted at smokers and others whose behavior

we seek to change. (See Attachment I.) In orde

gain clarity, many of the messages are accompanied

by appropriate photographs. The second su

presentation is targeted at educators and provides

more of the details of the project and the thinking

behind the messages. (See Attachment II

We recommend that these two presentations be made

available free on the USFA Web site. They also shou

be used proactively in fire safety educator training

sessions and conferences.

At some point, it would be useful to provide

public service announcements in various media for

national or local deployment. We recommend th
model public service announcements be developed

from the results of this project with the help of

public relations experts, such as Hager Sharp who

have already done some work for the U.S. Fire

Administration on the subject of smoking-material

fires, as cited earlier.

Standardization of Educational Messages

The recommended messages developed for this project

emerged from an extension of NFPA’s new EMAC.

This group is well equipped and well positioned to

provide ongoing maintenance of these messages, and

we recommend that they be asked to do so.

We also recommend that these messages be subjected

to focus group and pilot project evaluation. Findin

from those evaluations will provide a more detailed

substantive basis for the selection and specific

wording of the messages.

Implementation of Findings Beyond USFA

This report and these messages should be proactively

distributed to other developers and distributors

of fire safety public education materials, whether

focused on fire safety or included in larger packages

on unintentional injuries or health generally. 

recommend that this distribution include strong

encouragement to others to incorporate these

findings into their materials.

NFPA has already taken the initiative to begin

implementing these findings in its public education

materials, as they come up for routine revision.

Future Research

There were a number of points in the message

development process where better technical

information would have supported better or more

confident choices. The following are topics whe

additional research could lead directly to better

messages:

•	 Is there a relatively safe place to smoke indoors?

Some members of the messaging committee

wanted to recommend that smokers use the

kitchen if they cannot or will not smoke outdoors.

Ultimately, that message was not included because

too many questions about the risk associated with

smoking in the kitchen could not be answered.

	 Smoking-material fires and especially fatal fires are

much more common in bedrooms, living rooms,

family rooms, and dens than in kitchens, but it is

not known how the difference in fire frequencies

compares with the difference in time spent

smoking. The question remains whether fir

are less frequent in kitchens primarily because

people do not smoke in the kitchen very often, as

compared to other rooms.

	 In addition, the argument was made that

vulnerable soft furnishings are less common in

kitchens. No information was available, howeve

to confirm the magnitude of differences in

vulnerability of contents to cigarette ignition and

to subsequent fire growth.

	 This research project would involve assembling

more complete data on the fuel loading in

kitchens versus other rooms and on time

spent smoking in kitchens versus other rooms.

The same question has been raised regarding

bathrooms.

•	 How big a problem is smoking around medical 

oxygen? The available data were taken from

small number of jurisdictions and were neither

large enough nor representative enough to

support national estimates. A research project 

better quantify the magnitude of this problem

would be useful as an indication of the priority

that should be attached to this part of the

smoking-material fire problem.

•	 What is required to clear an area of medical 

oxygen before smoking? The recommend

message is very conservative and states there

should be no smoking by anyone in a home

where medical oxygen is used. The project te

was unable to find any substantiated guidance on

what is required, beyond turning off the flow of

oxygen, to make a room or area safe for smoking.

Because oxygen can be absorbed by clothing or

other fabric in the area, the answer is not obvious.

A research project could provide a basis for less

conservative but still effective guidance on safe

practices.
•	 What behaviors would people be willing to 

perform to achieve safety when disposing 

of butts and ashes? The project team we

back and forth regarding the strength of the

recommendation to use immersion in water

or sand to assure that ashes and butts were

safe for disposal. A research project cou

examine the ignition potential in butts and

ashes based on other methods, such as stubbing

out the cigarette and leaving it in the ashtray

for a defined period of time. A resear

project also could develop better information

on likely smoker resistance to messages that

would require behaviors as time-consuming

as dowsing in water or sand. The same proje

could look into variations of the message

regarding inspection of couch cushions and

other hidden sites for stray butts or ashes. Mo

detailed, substantiated guidance on how often,

when, and how this can best be done would be

helpful.

•	 What approach works best in health care 

facilities? A decade or more ago, heal

care facilities began taking a more aggressive

approach to smoking in their facilities. Thr

different approaches emerged.

	 One approach was a complete ban on smoking by

anyone. This is clearly the most effective approa

if the ban is observed, but concerns were raised

over the risks posed by “hidden smoking,” in

which the lit cigarette may be held closer to soft

furnishings while being hidden from health care

professionals.

	 The second approach was restriction of patient

smoking to designated areas. It is not known h

well those areas have been secured from risk of

cigarette-initiated fire or how successful facilities

have been in achieving compliance.

	 The third approach was a requirement that

patients be attended by medical personnel

when they smoke. Again, it is not known h

successful facilities using this approach have been

in achieving compliance.

	 A research project could determine the popularity

and history of effectiveness of each of these

approaches.
References

1. Holborn, Paul G. The Real Fire Library  Analysis o

Fatal Fires 1996-2000. London Fire Brigade--Fire

Investigation Group, London Fire and Emergency

Planning Authority, Nov. 2001.

2. Quillan,Thomas C. An Analysis of Civilian Fire Death

in Tallahassee (Leon County) Florida: 1983-1994, Strategic 

Analysis of Community Risk Reduction. Applied research

project submitted to the National Fire Academy as

part of the Executive Fire Officer Program, Jan. 1995.

3. U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Da

Center. Case Study: Contribution of Alcohol to Fire Fatalities 

in Minnesota. Topical Fire Research Series,Vol. 3, Issue

4, July 2003, online at http://www.usfa.fema.gov/

inside-usfa/nfdc/pubs/tfrs.shtm

4. Blum, Robert W.,Anne Kelly, and Marjorie Irelan

“Health-Risk Behaviors and Protective Factors among

Adolescents with Mobility Impairments and Learning

and Emotional Disabilities.” Journal of Adolescent Health, 

28 (2001): 481-490.

5. Barbeau, Elizabeth M., Nancy Krieger, and

Mah-Jabeen Soobader. “Working Class Matters:

Socioeconomic Disadvantage, Race/Ethnicity, Gender,

and Smoking in NHIS 2000.” American Journal of Public 

Health 94, no. 2 (Feb. 2004): 269-278.

6. Minnesota Department of Health, Blue Cross and

Blue Shield of Minnesota, Minnesota Partnership for

Action Against Tobacco, and University of Minnesota.

Patterns of Smoking among Minnesota’s Young Adults. Jan. 2004,

online at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/

hpcd/tpc/TobaccoReports.html

7. Office on Smoking and Health, Division of

Adolescent and School Health, National Center for

Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“Cigarette Use among High School Students--United

States, 1991-2003.” MMWR Weekly 53, no. 23 (2004):

499-502, online at http://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. Minnesota

Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics,

Aug. 9, 2002, online at http://www.mnschoolhealth.

com/data.html

9. Rode, Pete. Teens and Tobacco in Minnesota--Results from the 

Minnesota Youth Tobacco Survey. Dec. 2001, online at http://

www.health.state.mn.us/divs/chs/data/youthtob.pdf

10. Harrell, Joanne, S., Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Shibing

Deng, Julie P.Webb, and Chyrise Bradley. “Smoking

Initiation inYouth: The Roles of Gender, Rac

Socioeconomics, and Developmental Status.” Journal of 

Adolescent Health 23 (1998): 271-279.

11. Siqueira, Lorena, Marguerite Diab, Carol Bodian,

and Linda Rolnitzky. “Adolescents Becoming Smokers:

The Roles of Stress and Coping Methods.” Journal of 

Adolescent Health 27 (2000): 399-408.

12.Viahov, David, Sandro Galea, Jennifer Ahern, Heidi

Resnick, and Dean Kilpatrick. “Sustained Increased

Consumption of Cigarettes,Alcohol, and Marijuana

among Manhattan Residents after September 11,

2001.” American Journal of Public Health 94, no. 2 (Feb.

2004): 253-254.

13. Goldman, Lisa K., and Glantz, Stanton A.

“Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns.”

JAMA 279, no. 10 (1998): 772-777.

14. Hill, David, Simon Chapman, and Robert

Donovan. “The Return of ScareTactics.” Tobacco Control 7

(1998):5-8, online at http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/

reprint/7/1/5.pdf

15.Wakefield, M., J. Freeman, and R. Donovan. “Recall

and Response of Smokers and Recent Quitters to the

Australian NationalTobacco Campaign.” Tobacco Control 

12 (2003): ii15-ii22, online at http://tc.bmjjournals.

com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_2/ii15
16.	Niederdeppe,	Jeff,	Matthew	Farrelly,	and	M.	

Lyndon	Haviland.	“Confirming	‘Truth’:	More	

Evidence	of	a	Successful	Tobacco	Countermarketing	

Campaign	in	Florida.”	American Journal of Public Health,

94,	no.	2	(2004):	255-257.		

17.	Okah,	Felix	A.,	Won	S.	Choi,	Kolawole	S.	

Okuyemi,	and	Jaspit.	S.	Ahluwalia.	“Effects	of	

Children	on	Home	Smoking	Restrictions	by	Inner	

City	Smokers.”	Pediatrics	109,	no.	2	(2002):	244-249.

18.	K.	Glanz,	B.K.	Rimer,	and	F.M.	Lewis,	editors,	

Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and 

Practice,	3rd	ed.,	San	Francisco:		Jossey-Bass,	2002.

19.	Hager	Sharp.	Unpublished	final	report	to	U.S.	

Fire	Administration	on	smoker	receptiveness	to	

educational	messages,	September	30,	2004.
Appendix A

Characteristics of Databases Used in Study

National Fire Incident Reporting 

System (NFIRS)

The USFA’s NFIRS database is the most

representative national fire database providing

detailed information on individual fires and

casualties. Nearly all national estimates of specif

aspects of the U.S. fire problem begin with NFIRS.

About a third of U.S. fire departments--working

through their respective States‐‐ participate

NFIRS, which receives reports on an estimated

one-third to one-half of each year’s fires.

NFPA and most other users of NFIRS combine it

with the NFPA survey to produce the best “national

estimates” of the specific characteristics of the

Nation’s fire problem.

NFIRS was established in the mid-1970’s with only

a couple of States participating. By 1980, there w

sufficient representation from all regions to have

high confidence in its representativeness. Thu

most analyses of NFIRS go back only to 1980.

NFIRS usually is released on computer tape in the

spring of the second year following the year it

covers.

Fire Incident Data Organization (FIDO)

Many questions of technical interest require a level

of detail beyond that available through NFIRS or

the NFPA survey. For these, the best approach oft

is to use exploratory data from a database with

sufficient validated detail to be useful, even though

that database may not be representative of overall

U.S. fire experience. The largest such databas

excluding proprietary insurance-industry databases

that focus on commercial properties and financial

losses, is NFPA’s Fire Incident Data Organization

(FIDO).

FIDO is an incident-based database that combines

information from fire departments, insurance

companies, Federal and State safety agencies, and

news sources. NFPA designed and operates FI

to provide the best examples of fires demonstrating

very specific phenomena of high technical interest.

Examples include fires with information on the

performance of specific types of fire protection

systems and features.

When FIDO is not representative of all reported fires,

it is primarily because it favors larger, more severe

fires, such as fires involving five or more deaths or at

least $5 million in property damage.

FIDO has operated since 1971 as a computerized

index to NFPA’s well-documented fires. FI

contains data on almost 92,000 fires and now adds

roughly 1,500 fires a year. There are up to 1

separate datum elements on each incident, and

coverage extends to fires of interest around the

world.

In 1997 to 1998, the FIDO data collection

instructions were set to include all fatal fires, and the

FIDO database is considered representative of all U.S.

fatal fires for those years.

Many of the datum elements sought were never

or almost never recorded, including detailed

information on exactly where the fire-causing

cigarette was located when it ignited a fire and

where the smoker habitually smoked while at

home. For most incidents, it was possible 

identify persons present when fire occurred based

on these characteristics: (a) whether they were t

smoker whose cigarette started the fire or not; (b)

relationship to the smoker if not the smoker; (c)

whether the person was fatally injured, nonfatally

injured, or uninjured; (d) personal limitations that

could have influenced the ignition or reaction to fire

after ignition, including distinguishing alcohol from

drug impairment, identifying use of medical oxygen,

and identifying up to three different limitations per

person; (e) whether the person was in the room of

fire origin and what type of room he or she was in.
For this project, data were extracted from 300

qualified 1997 to 1998 incidents, with records on

477 individuals, including 389 deaths.

CDC Behavioral Risk Factor 

Surveillance System

The CDC conducts an annual random-sample

telephone survey called the Behavioral Risk Factor

Surveillance System. The latest year of availab

data for this study was 2002, for which 247,964

interviews were conducted and processed.

Every cell used in analysis had at least 400 cases

except for the following: yes to smoking a pipe n

(45 to 1,005 cases, depending on cigarette-smoker

status); most responses regarding bidis (minimum

of 20 cases for current bidi smokers who are not

current cigarette smokers); some answers within

the not-always responses for nonsmokers regarding

seatbelt use (analysis only contrasted always with

not-always, and both of these had at least 400 cases);

and some answers within the “allowed” group

regarding where smoking is allowed (analysis only

contrasted allowed versus not-allowed, and both of

these had at least 400 cases).
Appendix B

Additional 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 Structures

1994-1998 Annual Average of Fire Deaths and Injuries

Age

1996 Population

(in Millions) Civilian Deaths

Death Rate per

Million Persons Civilian Injuries Injury Rate perMillion 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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires with unknown fo

of heat of ignition and of smoking-related fires where the age of the victim was unknown. Civilian deaths and injuries are round

to the nearest one. Totals may not equal sums because of roundin

Sources: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey, and Statistical Abstract of the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Departme

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1997.
Table B-2. Age by Sex of Victims of Smoking-Material Fires

in Home Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire Departments

1994-1998 Annual Average of Fire Deaths and Injuries

Age

1996

Population

(in Millions)

Civilian

Deaths

Death

Rate

per

Million

People

Civilian

Injuries

Injury

Rate

per

Million

People

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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires with unknown fo

of heat of ignition and of smoking-related fires where the age or gender of the victim was unknown. Civilian deaths and injuries a

rounded to the nearest one. Totals may not equal sums because of roundin

Sources: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey; and Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997,Washington: U.S. Depart

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agen

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires where the vict

location was unknown.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA surve
Table B-4. Smoking vs. Other Leading Major Fire Causes

by 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 Fire

All

Deaths

Condition =

Asleep

Ignition 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: Not Applicable because “falling asleep” is identified using the Ignition Factor data element, which also is used to identi

Intentional and Child Playing. Those two major causes cannot be entered when “falling asleep” is coded as the reason for the fir

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires where the major cau

was unknown.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA surve
tments

,yore Injur Table B-5. Victim Location at Ignition vs. Victim Condition Bef

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R erial Home S 1994-1998 Smoking-Mat

. Civilian Deaths A

Location at Ignition

Asleep Impaired Disabled Age-Limited Awake Total

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

Intimate with 

ignition 22.5% 44.9% 38.7% 20.0% 49.4% 24.0% 23.6% 2.5% 25.5% 5.8% 29.1% 100.0%

Not intimate, in 

room of origin 26.6% 55.3% 29.4% 15.9% 33.8% 17.1% 30.9% 3.5% 26.4% 6.2% 28.0% 100.0%

Not in room, on 

floor of origin 32.6% 67.0% 25.1% 13.4% 9.6% 4.8% 31.8% 3.5% 26.9% 6.3% 28.2% 100.0%

Not on floor, in 

building of origin 17.0% 76.0% 5.9% 6.8% 4.6% 5.0% 13.6% 3.3% 17.5% 8.9% 13.0% 100.0%

Outside of building 

of origin 0.4% 35.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 32.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 15.7% 0.7% 100.0%

Unclassified 0.8% 47.4% 0.9% 13.9% 1.0% 14.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 13.7% 1.0% 100.0%

Total 100.0% 58.0% 100.0% 15.1% 100.0% 14.2% 100.0% 3.1% 100.0% 6.6% 100.0% 100.0%
tments

,yore Injur Table B-5. Victim Location at Ignition vs. Victim Condition Bef

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R erial Home S 1994-1998 Smoking-Mat

B. Civilian Injuries

Location at Ignition

Asleep Impaired Disabled Age-Limited Awake Total

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

% by 

Location

% by 

Condition

Intimate with ignition 21.0% 52.6% 40.1% 17.3% 46.6% 9.6% 15.8% 1.8% 11.5% 17.3% 20.7% 100.0%Not intimate, in room of origin 27.7% 56.0% 34.7% 12.1% 23.8% 4.0% 28.3% 2.6% 19.9% 24.1% 25.6% 100.0%Not in room, on floor of origin 23.6% 55.6% 17.3% 7.0% 18.1% 3.5% 25.9% 2.7% 21.3% 30.0% 22.0% 100.0%Not on floor, in building of origin 25.6% 54.8% 4.6% 1.7% 8.8% 1.5% 29.0% 2.8% 30.0% 38.5% 24.2% 100.0%Outside of building of origin 1.0% 9.0% 2.7% 4.2% 1.4% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.6% 79.6% 5.7% 100.0%Unclassified 1.1% 33.2% 0.6% 3.3% 1.3% 3.1% 1.0% 1.3% 2.7% 47.2% 1.8% 100.0%

Total 100.0% 51.9% 100.0% 8.9% 100.0% 4.3% 100.0% 2.3% 100.0% 31.0% 100.0% 100.0%
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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires where the vict

condition was unknown.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey.
Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of fires where the vict

location was unknown. Sleeping victim is based on Condition Before Injury. Falling asleep is based on Ignition Factor and refer

circumstances regarding the cause of the fire, not the victim.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey.
Table B-7. Leading Items First Ignited by Victim Location at Ignition

Percent 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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of smoking-material fir

where the form of material first ignited was unknown.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey.
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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or State agenci

or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influenced hea

by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional allocation of smoking-material fir

where the form of material first ignited was unknown.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey.
ctivity When Injured,

tments

Table B-9. Victim Location at Ignition vs. A

elated vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R

Smoking-R

1994-1998 Home S

. Civilian Deaths A

Sleeping Attempting to Escape

Acting Irrationally or

Unable to Act

Attempting to Fight Fire or

Attempting Rescue

Location at Ignition Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes

Intimate with ignition 29.9% 2.7% 11.2% 19.5% 6.4% 9.6% 44.7% 26.0% 30.6% 17.6% 14.6% 15.4%Not intimate, in room 

of origin 26.3% 18.6% 21.0% 21.7% 19.3% 19.8% 30.5% 29.8% 30.0% 35.2% 25.9% 28.3%

Not in room, on floor 

of origin 30.5% 41.2% 37.8% 33.2% 36.9% 36.0% 17.6% 22.5% 21.3% 30.7% 24.2% 25.9%

Not on floor, in building 

of origin 12.4% 36.6% 29.1% 24.5% 36.6% 33.7% 5.4% 19.0% 15.6% 11.9% 27.2% 23.3%

Outside of building of 

origin 0.9% 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 2.3% 6.8% 5.7%

Unclassified 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9% 2.3% 1.2% 1.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
tments (Cont’d)

ctivity When Injured, Table B-9. Victim Location at Ignition vs. A

elated vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R

Smoking-R

1994-1998 Home S

B. Civilian Injuries

Sleeping Attempting to Escape

Acting Irrationally or

Unable to Act

Attempting to Fight Fire or

Attempting Rescue

Location at Ignition Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes

Intimate with ignition 31.3% 4.2% 10.4% 7.8% 7.2% 7.2% 39.8% 33.6% 34.4% 14.4% 13.6% 13.7%Not intimate, in room of origin 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 in room, on floor of origin 19.3% 38.3% 34.0% 34.7% 31.3% 31.7% 15.3% 18.7% 18.3% 21.7% 20.8% 20.9%

Not on floor, in building of origin 18.5% 33.1% 29.8% 36.5% 39.8% 39.4% 12.6% 14.9% 14.6% 18.6% 17.8% 17.8%

Outside of building of origin 0.6% 1.3% 1.2% 2.3% 2.0% 2.1% 2.9% 3.8% 3.7% 15.5% 12.2% 12.5%

Unclassified 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 2.0% 1.9% 0.9% 2.1% 1.9% 2.6% 2.4% 2.5%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ctivity When Injured,

tments

y vs. A ore Injur 0. Victim Condition Bef

elated vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R

Smoking-R

Table B-1

1994-1998 Home S

. Civilian Deaths A

Sleeping Attempting to Escape

Acting Irrationally or

Unable to Act

Attempting to Fight Fire or

Attempting Rescue

Condition

Before Injury Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes

Asleep 82.3% 89.4% 87.3% 65.8% 57.7% 59.6% 16.6% 10.9% 12.3% 11.3% 34.1% 28.4%Awake and unimpaired 0.2% 2.3% 1.7% 9.5% 21.8% 18.8% 4.7% 25.7% 20.5% 59.9% 49.9% 52.5%Impaired by alcohol or other drugs 12.3% 3.4% 6.2% 8.8% 4.0% 5.2% 24.9% 10.3% 13.9% 13.4% 4.0% 6.4%

Physical handicap (including bedridden) 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 young to act 0.6% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 6.3% 4.8% 0.9% 26.1% 19.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.6%

Too old 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%

Mental handicap (including senile) 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 6.3% 5.0% 2.8% 0.0% 0.6%

Under restraint 0.6% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Unclassified 1.1% 0.0% 0.3% 2.2% 1.8% 1.9% 5.5% 3.0% 3.6% 6.3% 2.8% 3.7%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
ctivity When Injured,

tments (Cont’d)

y vs. A ore Injur 0. Victim Condition Bef

elated vs. Other Causes vs. All Causes

ted to U.S. Fire Depar epor tructure Fires R

Smoking-R

Table B-1

1994-1998 Home S

B. Civilian Injuries

Sleeping Attempting to Escape

Acting Irrationally or

Unable to Act

Attempting to Fight Fire or

Attempting Rescue

Condition

Before Injury Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes Smoking

Other

Cause

All 

Causes

Awake and unimpaired 1.5% 2.3% 2.1% 28.3% 44.9% 42.9% 25.6% 54.6% 50.7% 61.1% 82.2% 80.3%Asleep 89.1% 93.4% 92.5% 61.2% 46.6% 48.3% 12.6% 5.9% 6.8% 28.3% 13.0% 14.4%Impaired by alcohol or other drugs 7.6% 1.7% 3.0% 4.8% 1.0% 1.5% 26.8% 7.5% 10.1% 5.0% 1.0% 1.3%

Too young to act 0.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 2.6% 2.4% 4.5% 15.9% 14.4% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%Physical handicap (including bedridden) 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 old 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%

Mental handicap (including senile) 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.6% 7.4% 3.7% 4.2% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3%

Under restraint 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Unclassified 0.1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 1.5% 1.3% 2.3% 2.4% 2.4% 3.5% 2.7% 2.8%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
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: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments. Fires reported only to Federal or Sta

agencies or industrial fire brigades are excluded. National estimates are projections. Casualty and loss projections can be influe

heavily by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Statistics include a proportional share of fires with an unkno

condition preventing escape.

Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey.
 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 Location

When Found Area of Fire Origin

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether the 

Smoker

Bathroom 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% --

	 *Only 1 of these 5 incidents involved the same bedroom for victim location and area of fire origin.

Source: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation project.
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 Location

When Found Area of Fire Origin

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation project.

C. Totals for Area of Fire Origin

Victim Location

When Found Area of Fire Origin

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation project.
elationship y Victim R

7-1998

al Victim, b

ted the Fire art

3. Location of Fire vs. Location of Fat

er Whose Cigarette S

elated Home Fires from 199

to Smok

al Smoking-R atFIDO F

Table B-1

Victim Location

When Found Area of Fire Origin

Total

Not

Smoker

Child of

Smoker

Neighbor

or Friend

of Smoker

Spouse or 

Partner of 

Smoker

Parent 

of 

Smoker Other 

Bedroom Bedroom 5 1 0 2* 2 0Bedroom Living room, family room, or den 28 16 3 2 3 4Bedroom Other 2 2 0 0 0 0Kitchen Living room, family room, or den 2 0 0 2 0 0Kitchen Other 1 0 1 0 0 0Living room, family room, or den Bedroom 1 0 0 0 0 1Living room, family room, or den Living room, family room, or den 6 3 2 1 0 0Other Bedroom 2 0 2 0 0 0Other Living room, family room, or den 6 0 2 2 2 0Other Other 1 0 0 0 0 1Unknown Bedroom 4 1 2 0 0 1Unknown Kitchen 3 0 3 0 0 0Unknown Living room, family room, or den 16 3 4 2 3 4

Total Total 77 26 19 11 10 11

Percent of known total 100% 34% 25% 14% 13% 14%

began.	efir	eor

oom.

bef	

bedr

iends,

	same

fr	e lik

the

	, site	on

olvingv

	eer

in

w	

	tion

neighbors

oject.

combina

pr	 tion

oom	

Most		

mitiga

oom/Bedr

.adults

	vior

	eer

beha	

w

er

Bedr

	en

	y

smok

hildr

onl

or

c

f

the	

ser’

ysis

	is	2	

smok

anal	

these

FIDO Source:

Some

of	*1

Note:
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 Limitation

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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 disabilitynot 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
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 Limitation

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation projec
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

Limitation

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation project.

C. Totals for Limitations with No Other Limitations

Limitation

Total

Deaths Smoker

Not the

Smoker

Unknown

Whether 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: FIDO analysis for smoker behavior mitigation project.
ted the Fire art er Whose Cigarette S

7-1998

o Smok elationship t al Victim R

elated Home Fires from 199

at 5. Victim Condition, by F

al Smoking-R atFIDO F

Table B-1

Limitation Limitation Limitation

Total

Not

Smoker

Child of

Smoker

Neighbor

or Friend

of Smoker

Spouse or 

Partner of 

Smoker

Parent of 

Smoker Other 

Alcohol 3 0 1 1 0 1Alcohol Physical limitation--age Sleepy 1 0 1 0 0 0Alcohol Sleepy 4 0 2 0 0 2Mental disability--not age Sleepy 1 0 0 0 0 1Mental limitation--age Physical limitation--age 1 1 0 0 0 0Mental limitation-age Physical limitation--age Sleepy 1 1 0 0 0 0Physical disability--not age Physical limitation--age 1 0 0 0 1 0Physical disability--not age Sleepy 4 0 0 2 2 0Physical limitation--age 5 1 3 1 0 0Physical limitation--age Sleepy 9 3 3 0 3 0Sleepy 33 16 4 4 2 7None 14 4 5 3 2 0

Total 77 26 19 11 10 11

Percent of known total 100% 34% 25% 14% 13% 14%

began.	efir	eorbef	iends,fr	elik	site,	on	eerw	neighbors

oject.pr	tion

	Most		

mitiga	

.adults

vior

	e

beha

er

	er

w	en

smok

hildr

	orf

c	er’s

ysis

smok

anal	

	Some		 Note:	

Source:		FIDO
Appendix C

Additional Information on Smoking and Medical Oxygen

Philadelphia’s Deputy Chief Garrity described a

public education program to prevent oxygen therapy

fires in his 2000 paper for the Executive Fire Officer

Program at the National Fire Academy (NFA). Fr

March 3, 1999, to November 30, 2000, 12 oxygentherapy fires in Philadelphia caused 3 deaths and

injured 7 others. Although the cause of six fir

was listed as open-flame, in all six cases, the open

flame was being used to light a

cigarette. The remaining six we

specifically caused by smoking.

He noted that long-term smokers

find it difficult to quit even in the

face of requirements that patients

not smoke. Their public educati

program included a message not

to smoke while using oxygen

and instructs caregivers to

remove all smoking materials

and implements from the

oxygen user’s room. The

program included a television

public service announcement and

a school supplement on the topic

to enlist the support of children

and grandchildren.1

In a November 2003 safety

brochure, the Massachusetts

Office of the State Fire Marshal

reported that “Since 1997, 16

people have died and 20 other

individuals have suffered severe

burns or smoke inhalation in fires involving people

who were smoking while using home oxygen

systems.” People are advised never to smoke or lig

a match while using oxygen, to keep all heat sources

away from oxygen equipment, and not to allow

smoking inside a home where oxygen is used. Ev

if the oxygen has been shut off, the environment still

may be oxygen-enriched.2

In	a	telephone	conversation	with	Jennifer	Mieth,	

Public	Information	Officer,	on	March	10,	2004,	she	

commented that they were considering telling smokers

to shut off the oxygen, wait 10 minutes, and then

go outside to smoke. In a recent fatal fire, a clothing

ignition occurred when an oxygen user lit up after

shutting off the flow of oxygen. She theorized that the

victim’s clothing was still oxygen-saturated.

The Joint Commission on

Accreditation of Healthcare

Organizations (JCAHO) identified

a number of risk factors for fires

occurring when home health care

patients	were	using	supplemental	

involving	ethics	committees	

oxygen. These included livi

alone, the absence of working

smoke alarms, cognitive

impairment, a history of

smoking while oxygen was in

use, and flammable clothing.

Recommendations included

better staff training, improved

communication among providers;

in decisions to end services to

noncompliant patients; and

increasing fire safety with smoke

alarms and other practices.3

AlisaWolf’s 1998 article in NFPA 

Journal describes the growing number

of people who require medical

procedures and equipment while still

living in the community. The JCAHO has standards f

home health care organizations, but accreditation is not

mandatory for home health care Medicare participation.

The home environment is much less tightly regulated

than hospitals or nursing homes. People may n

comply with recommendations. They may contin

to smoke despite the danger. One fire chief reported

patient releasing oxygen to cool a room.4
References

1.	Garrity,	Thomas	J.		A Public Education Program to Prevent 

Oxygen-Therapy Fires: Strategic Analysis of Community Risk 

Reduction.	National	Fire	Academy	applied	research	

project	as	part	of	the	Executive	Fire	Officer	Program,	

Emmitsburg,	MD,	2000.

2.		Office	of	the	State	Fire	Marshal,	Massachusetts	

Department	of	Fire	Services.	“Smoking	and	Home	

Oxygen	Systems:		‘Some	People	Don’t	Know	When	

to	Quit.’”	(Nov.	2003),	online	at	http://www.state.

ma.us/dfs/osfm/pubed/flyers/Smoking_and_

Home_Oxygen.pdf

3.	Joint	Commission	on	Accreditation	of	Healthcare	

Organizations.	“Lessons	Learned:		Fires	in	the	Home	

Care	Setting.”	Sentinel Event Alert	17,	(Mar.	2001),	online	

at	http://www.jcaho.org/about+us/news+letters/

sentinel+event+alert/print/sea_17.htm

4.	Wolf,	Alisa.	“When	Health	Care	Moves	Home.”	

NFPA Journal,	92,	no.	1	(1998):	64-67.
Appendix D

Additional Information on 

Reduced-Ignition-Strength Cigarettes

Outside the U.S., on March 31, 2004, the Canadian

Parliament passed Bill C-260. This bill requir

cigarettes to self-extinguish if left unsmoked. Provisio

of the bill went into effect at the end of 2004.7

On April 2, 2004, Representative Edward J. Markey

and Representative Peter King introduced the Cigarette

Fire Safety Act of 2004. The bill reiterates U.S. statisti

about cigarette fire losses, and notes that, because

of the passage of two bills promoted by Joseph

Moakley, the Cigarette Safety Act of 1984 and the Fire

Safe Cigarette Act of 1990, the technical work for a

standard has been done. The proposed bill wou

require the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) to prescribe at least one cigarette fire safety

standard similar to NewYork’s within 18 months of

enactment.8,9 The bill was not enacte

There may be perceived adverse side effects to a

reduced ignition strength cigarette. For exampl

smokers may anticipate a less enjoyable smoking

experience or a higher cost. The tobacco indust

has encouraged these perceptions in its testimony

on bills to require such cigarettes. However, sin

the adoption of a requirement in NewYork, early

evidence shows no higher cost (and no reason to

expect costs to go higher) and no clear evidence

of a decline in smoking or a massive attempt to

circumvent the regulation in order to get and enjoy

noncompliant cigarettes. At the same time, the

are reactions to a legislative requirement. Smok

perceptions still appear to be a major barrier to

any large-scale voluntary, market-driven move to

reduced-ignition-strength cigarettes.

The safety community also must keep abreast of

new products. Bidis, filterless cigarettes wrapp

in a leaf, are usually imported from India. Th

often are flavored and are seen as an entry for teens

into tobacco use. They are said to go out mo

easily than conventional cigarettes, and must be

relit frequently.10 New products may be outside t

purview of existing legislation or regulations.

Barillo et al. state, “Because many smoking-related

fire fatalities involve alcohol use, modification of

human behavior is unlikely to be successful.”1T

first Federal legislation on the topic of fire-safe

(or, more accurately, reduced-ignition-strength)

cigarettes was introduced in the late 1920’s as a

tool to prevent forest fires.1

In a 1933 article, Hoffheins described tests done

to determine if modified cigarettes would reduce

the likelihood of grass or forest floor ignition. Th

found that the addition of cigarette tips made of

cigarette paper with less inorganic material reduced

the number of cigarette ignitions and did not

displease the consumer.2

In their study comparing smokers who did and did

not have fires and the brands of cigarettes smoked

by each group, Karter et al. found that cigarettes

involved in fires were less likely to have filters,

tended to have a shorter filter if a filter was present,

and tended to have greater porosity of cigarette

wrapping paper. The type of pack was releva

for males only; the risk of fire was much higher if

a man smoked a cigarette from a soft pack rather

than a hard pack.3

If any of the experimental cigarettes evaluated by

the Technical Study Group under the Cigarette

Safety Act of 1984 had been in exclusive use, the

smoking-material fire death toll would have been

projected to decrease by 58 percent in 1986,

and it was expected that these deaths would

be reduced by 64 percent by 1996.4In 200

Gann et al. reported that banded cigarettes testmarketed by a major manufacturer had a lower

ignition propensity in the test scenarios than did

conventional cigarettes.5

Effective June 28, 2004, cigarettes sold in the

State of NewYork must have a low ignition

strength and be more likely to self-extinguish if

unattended.6
References

1. Barillo, David J., Peter A. Brigham, Debra Ann

Kayden, Robert T. Heck, and Albert T. McManus. “The

Fire Safe Cigarette: A Burn Prevention Tool.” Journal o

Burn Care and Rehabilitation, (Mar./Apr. 2000): 164-170.

2. Hoffheins, F.M. “Fire Hazard Tests with Cigarettes,”

Quarterly of the National Fire Protection Association 27, no. 2,

(Oct. 1933): 132-140.

3. Karter, Michael J.,Terry L. Kissinger,Alison L.

Miller, Beatrice Harwood, Rita F. Fahy, and John

R. Hall, Jr. “Cigarette Characteristics, Smoker

Characteristics, and the Relationship to Cigarette

Fires.” Fire Technology 30, no. 4, (1994): 400-431.

4. Hall, John R., Jr. et al., “Expected Changes in

Fire Damages from Reducing Cigarette Ignition

Propensity.” vol. 5 of Report of the Technical Study Group 

Cigarette Safety Act of 1984, Washington: U.S. Consumer

Product Safety Commission, 1987.

5. Gann, Richard, Kenneth D. Steckler, Schuyler

Ruitberg,William F. Guthrie, and Mark S. Levenson.

Relative Ignition Propensity of Test Market Cigarettes. National

Institute of Standards andTechnology, 2001, online at

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire01/PDF/f01007.pdf

6. Department of State, NewYork. “NewYork Sta

Adopts Nation’s First Cigarette Fire Safety Standard.”

Press Release Dec. 31, 2003, online at http://www.

dos.state.ny.us/pres/pr2003/12_31.htm

7. Cherner, Joe (announced by). “Canada Bec

First Country to Require Fire-Safe Cigarettes,” Mar.

31, 2004, online at http://www.smokefree.net/

JoeCherner-announce/messages/247275.html

8. Markey, Edward. “Statement of Introduction: T

Cigarette Fire Safety Act of 2004.”Apr. 2, 2004,

online at http://www.house.gov/markey/Issues/

iss_cigfs_pr040402.pdf

9. Markey, Edward. “A Bill to Provide for Fire Safety

Standards for Cigarettes, and for Other Purposes”Apr.

2, 2004, online at http://www.house.gov/markey/

Issues/iss_cigfs_bill040402.pdf

10. Fisher, Laurie. “Bidis--The Latest Trend in U.S.

Teen Tobacco Use.” Cancer Causes and Control, Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Printed in the Netherlands

11 (2000): 577-578, online at http://www.hsph.

harvard.edu/cancer/research/tobacco/tobacco%20n

otes%20archive/tobacco_notes_11_577_578_2000
Appendix E

Implementation of Mitigation Strategies

Into USFA Public Fire Safety Education Materials

mattresses and bedding, and clothing fires. Speci

concerns of the very young or very old could be

inserted in each cause paragraph, and there would be

one paragraph each on just the high risks of these two

groups to go with the nine paragraphs on nine causes.

With this approach, the one paragraph on smoking

fires could have room for the first 4 bullets under

recommended messages and might be able to

also include the last bullet on alertness. Treat t

recommendations as a prioritized list and include

messages up to the space limits.

Is Your Home Fire Safe? Door Knob Hanger

(FA-285/August 1999)

This includes three bullets under a headline of “Safe

Smoking Habits.” This would be more consiste

with the other cause-related sections if the headline

were changed to simply “Smoking.” Given the seve

space limits, include the first two bullets and all or

the first half of the third bullet in the recommended

messages.

Fire Safety Checklist for Older Adults

 (FA-221/August 2002)

Older adults are probably the most resistant to

significant behavior change. They may be 

heightened risk (e.g., hypothermia) if pressed to

smoke outside. They also are particularly in ne

of the alertness and medical-oxygen messages. Th

paragraph incorporates the second, third, and fourth

bullets and the last one on alertness:

If You Smoke, Avoid Fire. Wherever you smok

use deep, sturdy ashtrays. Smoking should not 

allowed in a home where oxygen is used. Before y

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 oth

places people smoke for cigarette butts that may have

fallen out of sight. To prevent a deadly cigarette fir

The following seven educational messages were

developed for this project:

•	 If you smoke, smoke outside.

•	 Wherever you smoke, use deep, sturdy ashtrays.

•	 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.

•	 Smoking should not be allowed in a home where

oxygen is used.

•	 If you smoke, choose fire-safe cigarettes. They a

less likely to cause fires.

•	 To prevent a deadly cigarette fire, you have to be

alert. You won’t be if you are sleepy, have be

drinking, or have taken medicine or other drugs.

These recommended messages should be applied to

existing USFA educational materials, with prioritizing

based on space available, as described below:

Protecting Your Family From Fire

 (FA-130/August 2002)

Changes to this short brochure probably would

require a more general rethinking of the structure

and space allocation priorities of the brochure as

a whole. Currently, cause-related information 

limited to a fraction of one paragraph. Rough

3 pages and 11 paragraphs are devoted to causes,

toxicity, and the special risks of the very young and

very old.

If this brochure were restructured along cause lines--

with a paragraph each on safety tips--it could cover

smoking, heating, cooking, candle (primary part

of open flame), electrical distribution equipment,

child-playing fires, and also upholstered furniture,
you have to be alert. You won’t be if you are sleep

have been drinking, or have taken medicine or other

drugs.

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)

These four reports all include a generic section on

smoking-related safety guidance in a section on all

types of fire safety tips. It is recommended that the

be replaced with a paragraph incorporating all the

recommended messages, i.e.:

If you smoke, smoke outside. Wherever y

smoke, use deep, sturdy ashtrays. Before y

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 cushio

and in other places people smoke for cigarette

butts that may have fallen out of sight. Smoki

should not be allowed in a home where oxygen

is used. If you smoke, choose fire-safe cigarette

They are less likely to cause fires. To prevent

deadly cigarette fire, you have to be alert. Y

won’t be if you are sleepy, have been drinking, or

have taken medicine or other drugs.

Also, consider whether more targeted messages

might make sense, e.g.:

Your disability/age may mean you will need

more time to discover or react to a fire. The

recommendations on where, when and how to

smoke--and on what to do to keep control of

cigarette butts and ashes--are extra important to

make sure you are not trapped by a deadly fire.

It is strongly recommended that any such message be

developed and reviewed with the full participation

and approval of an appropriate advocacy group from

the disabled or older-adult community.

The Rural Fire Problem in the United States

(FA-180/August 1998)

Because this is a research report rather than a public

education piece, it is not a candidate for revised

language itself. If or when a public educati

campaign is developed with a rural focus, then it is

recommended that the earlier cited messaging be

incorporated in the smoking-related fires section,

with the exact version depending on the size of the

space available.

The research indicates that smoking does not rank as

high among causes of fatal fires in rural areas as in

nonrural areas. Heating ranks highest. Neverthel

smoking is a leading cause of fatal fires in rural areas,

and it should receive strong emphasis in a ruraloriented campaign.

Fire Safe Student Housing

(FA-228/February 1, 1999)

This is a guide for campus housing administrators

and so is not an exact fit for the messaging developed

here. Smoking is the subject of two paragraphs 

page 11. The research portion is flawed. Fal

asleep or passing out is not the primary mechanism

for fatal smoking fires. There is no need to identi

a problem as primary. The two problems identifie

-the other is a long smoldering period that hinders

detection while people are awake--should have their

order reversed, but neither should be identified as

primary.

The advice given usefully differentiates between

the increasingly common situation of a smoke-free

campus --in which indoor smoking is prohibited

everywhere and the rules of fire safety essentially

consist of rigorously enforcing the ban--and the

situation of an unregulated campus, in which

case the author’s advice should be changed to the

recommended all-message paragraph, as cited under

the Fire Risks for the Older Adult series.
For	more	information	or	copies	of	this	publication,	please	contact:

Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Fire Administration

16825	South	SetonAvenue

Emmitsburg,	Maryland	21727

800-561-3356

www.usfa.dhs.gov

FA-302/February 2006