Stumptown Shooters

October 25^th, 2004

In response to the article “A Long Road Back A story about fireworks in untrained hands”
recently published in the NFPA Journal by Margie Coloian;

For the record, I personally, the Members of my Club (the Stumptown Shooters of River Junction Iowa) as well as any serious member of the PGII abhors and condemns the misuse of any pyrotechnic or explosive device of any kind which results in the tragic loss of limb and life each year. I further commend the NFPA, PGII, APA, CPSC, BATF and other organizations, which promote the safe and proper use fireworks of all kinds, but I feel that this article misses the mark in calling for an outright ban.

In my capacities as a PGII Certified Pyrotechnics Safety Course Instructor and fireworks enthusiast, I must take issue with some of the aspects of Margie Coloian's Article. While safety is always the paramount concern while using any type of firework or explosive device, this article is based on the premise that since this poor woman was grossly disfigured and has been made to endure surgeries and disabilities, which no person should have to endure, that this should be a reason to outlaw all consumer fireworks.

This premise is basically flawed for a number of reasons. First, the device that caused Ms. Miller’s injury was NOT a consumer firework. A 9" shell by any definition is a Class B (Type 1.3G) explosive device. This should not be in any way confused with consumer Class C (Type 1.4G) devices. The article makes mention that this device exploded in Ms. Miller's face after traveling over "100 Yards".

The MINIMUM distance this shell should have been given was 210 Yards (630 feet). A shell of this type is designed to burst at 700 to 900 feet (altitude) and may (under normal conditions) drift to either side of it's original ignition point over 270 feet. This is not to say that Class C Fireworks are not dangerous when misused but if this was a true “consumer” firework device, Ms. Miller would not have been injured with 100 yards of distance between her and the device.

The cross mixing of the type of device used as the prime example in the article is important to note as it makes it seem that any Consumer type firework will do this level of damage at this range and so must be legislated away. Ms. Coloian does allow one line of the article to make the distinction that the only type of fireworks which she (and the NFPA) give blessing to is the Displays shot by "Professionals" (which I thank her for) but there is little else in the article to give the impression that fireworks are anything but "dangerous" devices which (as Dr. Stuart Danker says) should be "banned once and for all."

The article states: "The purpose of this article is to highlight that fireworks of any classification in the hands of anyone but professionals can have disastrous consequences." It should read: "…fireworks of any classification in the hands of anyone who MISUSES THEM can have disastrous consequences." It is not the devices themselves that are dangerous. It is the way they are handled (or mishandled), used (or abused) and by whom they are used either by Professionals or non-professionals. I have seen both "professionals" and nonprofessionals alike who treat pyrotechnics with either great respect or conversely with disdain for their safe use. The point is that it is the choice of the "technician" to either abide by or disregard the safe use of these devices.

The choice of "banning" them through legislation will not make these devices go away. This was tried before with prohibition. The result? Black market liquor, speakeasies, and deaths from improperly made or stored bootleg liquor, turf wars, police shootouts, a rise in organized crime and ultimately the repeal of prohibition as a failed experiment. Fireworks would be no different. Even today, in a time when fireworks are legal in some states, there are many injuries and deaths occurring from homemade (illegal) fireworks. These deaths and injuries are mainly in states that have a ban on fireworks. If these devices are "banned" nationwide, they will still be just as desirable but will cause even more death and destruction as even more of these non-professionals attempt to build them at (or worse, in) their homes.

The reasonable and sane alternative is to educate not legislate the proper use of fireworks. I agree 100% with the condemnation of selling any type of firework to minors. This is where the legislation is needed. Regardless of what the law says, I personally could not and would not sell any explosive device to a child. If the NFPA wants to push legislation, push it in this arena.

As far as the statistics given in the article, there has been a historically well-documented average fatality rate of 800 to 1000 people each year from bicycles and hundreds of thousands of injuries each year. It is far more likely that a child will have access to a bicycle than to a 9" mortar shell. So, following the reasoning set forth in the article, shouldn't the NFPA be calling for a legislative ban on bicycles? After all, the statistical probability that you or your child will be injured or killed on a bicycle are astronomically high when compared to fireworks, which has (as the article states) an average of only six fatalities per year.

The statistics given state that in the one-month period between June and July 2003 there were 6800 injuries. The article did not give the total for 2003 (which was 8800). The increase during the 4th of July period should be obvious yet the article gives the reader an impression that there must be 6800 injuries per month when in fact, there is an average per month injury rate of only 733 per month. Compare that to those of bicycles and sports equipment injuries with an average of 346,172 per month (4,154,068 total reported in 2003) at an annual cost of approximately 107 Million dollars in medical costs per year (from the CPSC Annual report -2003). Given these impressive numbers, maybe these should be put on the legislative "watch list" instead.

I realize that since the NFPA and this article is concerned with only fire and explosive related issues, I am mixing apples and oranges here but this comparison is given only to highlight the article's somewhat misleading gist that while it might (or might not) be true that "fireworks pose a higher risk of fire death than any other consumer product used in the United States", they do not pose the highest risk of death overall by a long stretch. Given the low numbers, I personally doubt that fireworks account for more damaging fires than say matches, cigarettes and lighters, Gasoline, Propane tanks, Natural Gas, etc which are all far more prevalent "consumer products". I don't believe for instance, I have ever heard of a Forest fire being caused by fireworks yet these fires account for thousands of acres, millions of dollars in property and dozens of lives lost each year.

My heart goes out to Ms. Miller who will have to bear the brunt of the stupidity of another for the rest of her life and I partially agree with Ms. Coloian in at least calling for the law to be changed to not allow the sale of explosives to children but I also feel that the article is way off the mark as a whole. The fireworks themselves are not now or ever have been the problem. It is the base stupidity and/or ignorance of those who abuse and misuse them that has always been and will always be the problem without the education and the will to use them correctly.

Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.

Sincerely,

Mark-Stephen Woodburn
PGII Certified Instructor
Member Stumptown Shooters Pyrotechnics Club of River Junction Iowa

Back to Documents Page


News from the Club. Check here often for recent news and upcoming events. Who we are, what we do and other Club Info. Upcoming Class Schedules & Info for those doing "Experience" Shows, PGI Certification Application, etc. Questions about Permits, Bunkers, Transportation & Other Needed Information. Contacts to our Friends in the Pyro Community, Safety Agencies, Vendors, other Clubs & Organizations Some of our Shows which we hope you enjoy viewing half as much as we did staging them! PGI Membership Applications, IPA Membership Application, News, Opinions & More! "Vital Statistics" of the Stumptown Shooters. Info on the Opening Show of the 2005 PGI National Convention in Mason City, IA Behind the scenes, "In your Face", Shoot Shots, who knows what might be in here (someday!) Who to blame for all this! More or Less the development of this site.	October 25^th, 2004 In response to the article “A Long Road Back A story about fireworks in untrained hands” recently published in the NFPA Journal by Margie Coloian; For the record, I personally, the Members of my Club (the Stumptown Shooters of River Junction Iowa) as well as any serious member of the PGII abhors and condemns the misuse of any pyrotechnic or explosive device of any kind which results in the tragic loss of limb and life each year. I further commend the NFPA, PGII, APA, CPSC, BATF and other organizations, which promote the safe and proper use fireworks of all kinds, but I feel that this article misses the mark in calling for an outright ban. In my capacities as a PGII Certified Pyrotechnics Safety Course Instructor and fireworks enthusiast, I must take issue with some of the aspects of Margie Coloian's Article. While safety is always the paramount concern while using any type of firework or explosive device, this article is based on the premise that since this poor woman was grossly disfigured and has been made to endure surgeries and disabilities, which no person should have to endure, that this should be a reason to outlaw all consumer fireworks. This premise is basically flawed for a number of reasons. First, the device that caused Ms. Miller’s injury was NOT a consumer firework. A 9" shell by any definition is a Class B (Type 1.3G) explosive device. This should not be in any way confused with consumer Class C (Type 1.4G) devices. The article makes mention that this device exploded in Ms. Miller's face after traveling over "100 Yards". The MINIMUM distance this shell should have been given was 210 Yards (630 feet). A shell of this type is designed to burst at 700 to 900 feet (altitude) and may (under normal conditions) drift to either side of it's original ignition point over 270 feet. This is not to say that Class C Fireworks are not dangerous when misused but if this was a true “consumer” firework device, Ms. Miller would not have been injured with 100 yards of distance between her and the device. The cross mixing of the type of device used as the prime example in the article is important to note as it makes it seem that any Consumer type firework will do this level of damage at this range and so must be legislated away. Ms. Coloian does allow one line of the article to make the distinction that the only type of fireworks which she (and the NFPA) give blessing to is the Displays shot by "Professionals" (which I thank her for) but there is little else in the article to give the impression that fireworks are anything but "dangerous" devices which (as Dr. Stuart Danker says) should be "banned once and for all." The article states: "The purpose of this article is to highlight that fireworks of any classification in the hands of anyone but professionals can have disastrous consequences." It should read: "…fireworks of any classification in the hands of anyone who MISUSES THEM can have disastrous consequences." It is not the devices themselves that are dangerous. It is the way they are handled (or mishandled), used (or abused) and by whom they are used either by Professionals or non-professionals. I have seen both "professionals" and nonprofessionals alike who treat pyrotechnics with either great respect or conversely with disdain for their safe use. The point is that it is the choice of the "technician" to either abide by or disregard the safe use of these devices. The choice of "banning" them through legislation will not make these devices go away. This was tried before with prohibition. The result? Black market liquor, speakeasies, and deaths from improperly made or stored bootleg liquor, turf wars, police shootouts, a rise in organized crime and ultimately the repeal of prohibition as a failed experiment. Fireworks would be no different. Even today, in a time when fireworks are legal in some states, there are many injuries and deaths occurring from homemade (illegal) fireworks. These deaths and injuries are mainly in states that have a ban on fireworks. If these devices are "banned" nationwide, they will still be just as desirable but will cause even more death and destruction as even more of these non-professionals attempt to build them at (or worse, in) their homes. The reasonable and sane alternative is to educate not legislate the proper use of fireworks. I agree 100% with the condemnation of selling any type of firework to minors. This is where the legislation is needed. Regardless of what the law says, I personally could not and would not sell any explosive device to a child. If the NFPA wants to push legislation, push it in this arena. As far as the statistics given in the article, there has been a historically well-documented average fatality rate of 800 to 1000 people each year from bicycles and hundreds of thousands of injuries each year. It is far more likely that a child will have access to a bicycle than to a 9" mortar shell. So, following the reasoning set forth in the article, shouldn't the NFPA be calling for a legislative ban on bicycles? After all, the statistical probability that you or your child will be injured or killed on a bicycle are astronomically high when compared to fireworks, which has (as the article states) an average of only six fatalities per year. The statistics given state that in the one-month period between June and July 2003 there were 6800 injuries. The article did not give the total for 2003 (which was 8800). The increase during the 4th of July period should be obvious yet the article gives the reader an impression that there must be 6800 injuries per month when in fact, there is an average per month injury rate of only 733 per month. Compare that to those of bicycles and sports equipment injuries with an average of 346,172 per month (4,154,068 total reported in 2003) at an annual cost of approximately 107 Million dollars in medical costs per year (from the CPSC Annual report -2003). Given these impressive numbers, maybe these should be put on the legislative "watch list" instead. I realize that since the NFPA and this article is concerned with only fire and explosive related issues, I am mixing apples and oranges here but this comparison is given only to highlight the article's somewhat misleading gist that while it might (or might not) be true that "fireworks pose a higher risk of fire death than any other consumer product used in the United States", they do not pose the highest risk of death overall by a long stretch. Given the low numbers, I personally doubt that fireworks account for more damaging fires than say matches, cigarettes and lighters, Gasoline, Propane tanks, Natural Gas, etc which are all far more prevalent "consumer products". I don't believe for instance, I have ever heard of a Forest fire being caused by fireworks yet these fires account for thousands of acres, millions of dollars in property and dozens of lives lost each year. My heart goes out to Ms. Miller who will have to bear the brunt of the stupidity of another for the rest of her life and I partially agree with Ms. Coloian in at least calling for the law to be changed to not allow the sale of explosives to children but I also feel that the article is way off the mark as a whole. The fireworks themselves are not now or ever have been the problem. It is the base stupidity and/or ignorance of those who abuse and misuse them that has always been and will always be the problem without the education and the will to use them correctly. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion. Sincerely, Mark-Stephen Woodburn PGII Certified Instructor Member Stumptown Shooters Pyrotechnics Club of River Junction Iowa Back to Documents Page