PDA

View Full Version : Another twisted tail about the danger of fireworks.



leeca
July 19th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Fireworks can cost you

By Mark Siggelkow examiner.com

On July 5, 2009, a group of people decided to have a little bit of a celebration to mark a summer weekend and the Fourth of July holiday. A few drinks, some good friends and an assortment of fireworks. No big deal, right?

Almost 40 million gallons of water, 60 fire departments, and almost 300 fire fighters and the cost of this weekend party is $50 million and counting, along with 600 jobs.

But not to give the impression that a simple bottle rocket was the cause, it was discovered through the investigation that a military grade flare was shot into the air. Investigators are still looking into where and how this particular item came to be in the possession of the two men that have been arrested in connection with this fire.

Full Story. (http://www.examiner.com/x-8372-Fire-Safety-Examiner~y2009m7d17-Fireworks-can-cost-you?#comments)

I had to add my 2 cents to the comment section on this one.

ScottT
July 19th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Ignorance like that makes me mad. Had to add my 2 cents as well. UHHHHGGG!

PyroDiablo
July 19th, 2009, 03:38 AM
I had to chime in as well. I've used "military grade flares" numerous times. I didn't think anyone would be ignorant enough to compare them to 1.4 but... The media has no objectivity left. It's all about sensationalism and headlines. It's a tragedy that these two mental midgets took out the pork plant, but, call it what it was, stupidity. It didn't have anything to do with consumer grade pyro. :mad:

Kwyjibo
July 19th, 2009, 06:38 AM
Cant believe they're passing this garbage as news. :(

billebouy
July 19th, 2009, 07:17 AM
" Find out more about Mark:

Mark is a fire fighter, paramedic and fire safety educator. With almost 20 years in the fire service, he believes the best way to fight a fire is to prevent it from ever happening through accurate and timely information."

accurate? That would be nice....

"The flare is scene landing on the roof" scene?

ScottT
July 19th, 2009, 07:24 AM
"The flare is scene landing on the roof" scene?

Noticed that too...further evidence of how amateur this reporting was.

stuntborg
July 19th, 2009, 07:31 AM
I added my own two cents. How about blaming "a few drinks" or "illeagal military grade flares" instead of fireworks. Both those things were more to blame than fireworks.

countryboy7978
July 19th, 2009, 08:02 AM
I like how a typical black cat can amputate adult fingers and child hands. I'd have no hands right now if that were true. I got "bit" by thunder bombs more times than I can remember as a kid. lol

D1swfl
July 19th, 2009, 08:25 AM
I had to chime in as well. I've used "military grade flares" numerous times. I didn't think anyone would be ignorant enough to compare them to 1.4 but... The media has no objectivity left.

I would expect a story like that from your typical journalist, but this mental midget is a fireman posing as a journalist. His bio says "Mark is a fire fighter, paramedic and fire safety educator. With almost 20 years in the fire service, he believes the best way to fight a fire is to prevent it from ever happening through accurate and timely information." Accuracy my azz!

I hope that everyone here will take the time to comment on the story. It's time to knock the authors credibility down a notch.

hate fusing :)
July 19th, 2009, 10:29 AM
i dont understand why fireworks were even mentioned. they had nothing to do with what happened. i guess hes trying to pump up his story or he's just anti-fireworks.

-Detroit Pyro-
July 19th, 2009, 12:21 PM
i don't understand why fireworks were even mentioned. they had nothing to do with what happened. i guess hes trying to pump up his story or he's just anti-fireworks.


As most liberal journalists do. Just another thing to twist and bitch about! Honestly... I could care less about journalists have to say. It seems like they all have hidden agendas and love reporting negative news.

Question.... What is the difference between military and standard aerial flares? IMO, even road flares placed in the wrong situation can do the same damage as described in this article.

mgh1980
July 19th, 2009, 01:09 PM
As most liberal journalists do. Just another thing to twist and bitch about! Honestly... I could care less about journalists have to say. It seems like they all have hidden agendas and love reporting negative news.

Question.... What is the difference between military and standard aerial flares? IMO, even road flares placed in the wrong situation can do the same damage as described in this article.


That's the problem with journalism, or what is called journalism now. Any news story you read, you could totally tell the person's opinion on the subject. Everything is somehow slanted to report a bias. Low and behold, there is an antifirework contingent out there who can be somewhat vocal, either by voice, or by print, and will do anything to smear fireworks.

They throw out bs stats about firecrackers, people's eyes getting knocked out by bottle rockets, etc so some impressionable people could look at them and adopt their view point. Complete and utter bs. I actually put on a small show for my God daughter's b'day yesterday. Her aunt was kind enough to point out the dangers of me 'blowing my hands off' from a spontaneous explosion while carrying some of my 500 grammers up to the shoot site. I asked here, where the F!@# did she hear this from, she said the news!!

I mean come on!! I told her to research this before speaking in public. Then her and I had a discussion about the truthfullness of CNN and honesty in journalism.

There is a group of open minded people out there who will believe what CNN or any other news program will tell them, and fight for this.

billebouy
July 19th, 2009, 01:24 PM
As most liberal journalists do. Just another thing to twist and bitch about! Honestly... I could care less about journalists have to say. It seems like they all have hidden agendas and love reporting negative news.

Question.... What is the difference between military and standard aerial flares? IMO, even road flares placed in the wrong situation can do the same damage as described in this article.

First off folks, the guy is a "fire fighter, paramedic and fire safety educator" according to his bio, not a journalist. I would not say he has a "hidden" agenda at all, he is voicing the official position of most any fire safety organization, sadly. To go further and say he is a "liberal" journalist is a stretch, I think if you polled anti-fireworks advocates and politicians, you would not find any traditional/party bias one way or the other.

Second, there is a huge difference between a standard roadside/marine signal flare, and one that is designed to illuminate a battlefield.

Finally, I would say this guy had his anti-fireworks story laid out before the 4th, and was just looking for a recent story to tie it to. What did this event have to do with fireworks? Nothing, just made for a melodramatic backdrop for his annual anti-fireworks rant.

danmagicman
July 19th, 2009, 01:57 PM
alQuida...iraQ...the connection is obvious!

minor
July 19th, 2009, 03:05 PM
I was going to add a comment but I think it would be flogging a dead horse. Pyro-u ripped him a new one!:lolbash:

After seeing his response i changed my mind.

notenoughcash
July 19th, 2009, 03:16 PM
And he replies:

Mark Siggelkow says:
To reply to all of the comments: My familiarity with fireworks is limited to what shows are in the park, as it is illegal for anything more than a sparkler in my area.

As for an "agenda," I do have one--USE YOUR HEADS when you use these items. Until you chase around a yard to find part of hand, or have to take a 5 year old to the hospital with 2nd and 3rd degree burns to the face, you may not think about what you do.

I have had to take care of such injuries and worse due to the "safest" consumer activity.

Again, be mad at my comments if you want, but take a second look at where you are shooting them off and what level your abilities are.

As for the military flare, let us rely on the words of the ATF and other investigators. They say military flare.

I honestly am at a loss for words...

rainmaker
July 19th, 2009, 03:27 PM
Some people are just retarded, Every time some dumbass burns something down its puts all Pyro's in the Spotlight, Dont people think before doing shit????? WOW

danmagicman
July 19th, 2009, 04:48 PM
What i hate to hear most is when fire dept officials or anyone from the public in a position that "should" know about fireworks talk about "losing limbs" and crap like that...like it happens all the time.

There is almost NO WAY someone can loose a limb using consumer fireworks.

If you held out your arm directly over the path of a mortar, sure, it would probably break. Not fly off into oblivion. Then again you'll also lose a limb if you get into a car accident, jetski into a dock, use a chainsaw improperly, or stick your arm to the side during a roller coaster.

Are any of those things banned? No.

If a kid or drunk is mischievous enough to injure themselves seriously in some way with fireworks, odds are they would injure themselves or others in some other way if it wasn't for fireworks. Fireworks were not the problem, stupid people were.

Instead of shooting bottle rockets, kids will try to light their farts on fire. I've heard that if you light your farts on fire, it can ignite the gases in your rectum all the way to your intestines and cause death by internal combustion...literally. Do they ban farting? .... ... Will they ban farting? Perhaps it is covered under the new second hand smoke laws...

minor
July 19th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Those aholes just cleared all the comments!!

PyroDiablo
July 19th, 2009, 05:42 PM
I kind of figured this tool would end up clearing the comments. Nothing like a few facts to get in the way of a biased article.


Those aholes just cleared all the comments!!

danmagicman
July 19th, 2009, 06:11 PM
I love the line about a "black cat" or "firecracker" that has the power to take off a finger or hand....

PyroDiablo
July 19th, 2009, 06:19 PM
Yeah, if that were the case, I wouldn't have had hands since I was 6 years old due to these very dangerous devices. :rolleyes:

These people need to get a grip.


I love the line about a "black cat" or "firecracker" that has the power to take off a finger or hand....

mrfixit246
July 19th, 2009, 06:43 PM
We need to just copy paste our comments over and over. Every time he clears them re-post them. Don't get nasty, just point out the error of his ways.

Fixit

PyroMania
July 19th, 2009, 06:52 PM
Now THIS is fun. :twisted:

leeca
July 19th, 2009, 07:05 PM
You guys just need to stick with the facts and don't do any name calling so he wont have any good reason to clear all the posts.

I didn't do any name calling but my post was cleared as well.. love his come back..It really is showing his true colors.

cexshun
July 19th, 2009, 08:06 PM
I love the line about a "black cat" or "firecracker" that has the power to take off a finger or hand....

I think this may technically be true if someone were to snuggly and firmly clench the item in a tight fist. That's the while idea of fireworks, the stronger you wrap it up, the bigger it booms.

I don't have any specific numbers in front of me, but I'd imagine that a 8 year old setting off a firecracker in a clenched fists may in fact lead to amputation of at least a few fingers.

While we are calling bullshit, we need to be careful not to be caught in our own propaganda and actually speak truths.

kingcarcas
July 19th, 2009, 08:06 PM
"There are people who argue that the government is interfering with individual rights, but these people may be the ones who could safely use them with a little bit of training. Most people do not fall into this category. Consumption of alcohol, unfamiliarity with the devices, and cluttered and crowded areas all add to the possibility of injuries or worse."

So most people are stupid and we should make everything illegal?

PyroDiablo
July 19th, 2009, 08:07 PM
Agreed. Not only are his color's showing, but his lack of understanding as well. I know that we won't change his opinion on the subject matter but somebody has to represent the other side of the issue.


You guys just need to stick with the facts and don't do any name calling so he wont have any good reason to clear all the posts.

I didn't do any name calling but my post was cleared as well.. love his come back..It really is showing his true colors.

PyroDiablo
July 19th, 2009, 08:09 PM
Sorry for the double tap in so short a period of time but they cleared the comments again. Looks like wonder boy is working overtime tonight.

dolfan228
July 19th, 2009, 08:29 PM
This guy really has some nerve! I have never seen where someone deletes the comments just because they don't agree with their article. I didn't see one comment agreeing with his position, before or after he deleted comments. I guess he will be calling all his buddies now to leave positive comments on his article.

He assumes an awful lot in his article. The point is, they had the flare. At some point in time, maybe not that night, maybe not that area, maybe not that building, but they were probably going to set off the flare.

"A review of Southern California wildfires over the last decade shows a half-dozen significant fires that were caused by fireworks." What about all the other fires caused over the last decade? How were those started?

I could go on with his article, and the comments he made afterwards, but....what's the point.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

fashionheadhunter
July 19th, 2009, 10:15 PM
Posted a comment.

danmagicman
July 19th, 2009, 10:50 PM
Ha, by arguing he's just digging himself deeper...

upNsmoke
July 20th, 2009, 08:10 PM
All comments wiped yet again. I thought it was getting civil, but I guess he couldn't handle it. He made 3 comments then I think there was mine and a couple more before he/they wiped them all again. I questioned why since he's a "safety educator" he didn't try and educate people on the dangers of misuse and the proper use of consumer fireworks if he was going to bring them up at all.

billebouy
July 20th, 2009, 08:18 PM
There seems to be 20 comments there now, going back to yesterday, why they reappeared, who knows. And one comment, with good grammer, I might add, from "Taterhead"... I lol'ed, who's the wise guy?

upNsmoke
July 20th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Hmm you might be pulling an old one from cache maybe. It says there are 35 comments with none showing up. At 4:00pm before I left work and my comments there were 32.

Oh I saw the taterhead one as well and was surprised by the grammer and wondered myself lol

ixfd64
July 20th, 2009, 11:17 PM
You might want to put this template to good use: http://pyrouniverse.com/forum/showthread.php?t=22666

upNsmoke
July 21st, 2009, 05:09 AM
Comments work i guess. When I checked from home at the top underneath examiner it had Chicago listed and it didn't display the comments, but at work it shows Dallas and the comments are listed.

strobes
July 21st, 2009, 06:57 AM
This guy isnt as good as he thinks. It took them 20 hours to put a fire out that a major city fire dept would of wiped out in less than half the time.

Look at it this way guys, who really reads the examiner? Its a glorified blog.

URBNFLX
July 21st, 2009, 09:40 AM
It's amazing to me how arrogant a reporter is when his mistakes are pointed out to him and how he uses the tools of his webmaster to clear things that are factual against his article. His replies to all of the comments are amusing and show how much of an amateur he really is. He has no business being a "fire safety examiner” when he clearly has no idea what the facts really are. Sometimes I think that some local fire officials are just as uneducated as he is.

Also, after doin a bit of googling... I found out that good ole Mark is one of the local firefighters that took forever to put out the fire...

LINK (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/50179937.html)

First Firefighters on Scene Talk About Blaze
By Heather Shannon
CUDAHY - Firefighters Andrew Rodriguez and Mark Siggelkow were first on the scene at Sunday night's huge fire at Patrick Cudahy.

"It was so smoke charged we really couldn't see anything," Rodriguez said of the scene.

Unable at first to see the magnitude of the blaze, Rodriguez used thermal imaging to locate hot spots. He was on the plant's roof when things turned dangerous.

"It started getting pretty smoky up there and pretty hot up there. That's when the chief told us, get off the roof. Minutes later, that roof collapsed," Rodriguez said. "It was a good thing the chief told us to get off the roof when he did. Someone was looking out for us."

Everyone survived and no one was hurt. Firefighters on the scene, 130 of them from 27 different departments, also looked out for one another.

"It's a brotherhood, so we were all taking care of each other, watching each other, making sure that none of us got hurt," Rodriguez said.

Part of that is making sure everyone took breaks.

"You go down to the rehab area, get something to eat, get something to drink, cool down, get a little recharge. That's as close as you get to sleep during one of these operations," firefighter Mark Siggelkow said.

Mark was up for 46 hours straight; Andrew 32. What kept them going?

"Adrenaline," Mark replied. "A lot of adrenaline. You live on adrenaline."

But more than adrenaline, both say lots of training helped them make it through.

"We train every week in situations and our training came through for us at this fire," Rodriguez said.