Fire!

[Mouse]

Probably need a doctor/fireman to help with this one.

I know if your house catches on fire you're more likely to die from smoke inhalation than the actual fire.

How long would it take to recover from smoke inhalation?

I'm guessing your throat and lungs would burn, but the rest of you wouldn't burn unless you came into contact with the flames, right?

I know I can Google this (and I already have done a wee bit) but, how long does it take for someone to pass out from smoke inhalation?

I'm not sure where the fire's going to be yet (or if I'm definitely going to go with a fire), but if a detached house was on fire, the neighbouring houses would be kinda safe, would they?

I might burn a hotel down. You know, I had to take several fire safety tests when I worked in a hotel and now I can't remember a damn thing.

One more question, as a reader would you rather read a house fire or a hotel fire? Hotel's way more dramatic, I think.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Mouse

One more question, as a reader would you rather read a house fire or a hotel fire? Hotel's way more dramatic, I think.

Not a doctor or fireman, so will stick to the last question.


It depends what emotional context you are aiming for with the fire. Besides the drama of killing off your characters. A house fire is dramatic as the family will/could loose everything and have to live somewhere else. However a hotel fire can be dramatic as more people could be involved, you wouldn't be familiar with the soundings and get lost trying to escape. Yes I know fire exits should be easy to find etc...

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by Glitch

It depends what emotional context you are aiming for with the fire. Besides the drama of killing off your characters. A house fire is dramatic as the family will/could loose everything and have to live somewhere else. However a hotel fire can be dramatic as more people could be involved, you wouldn't be familiar with the soundings and get lost trying to escape. Yes I know fire exits should be easy to find etc...

Yeah a house fire would be more tragic for the character, in a way. But hotel = more people to get hurt. Hmm... difficult to decide!

[allmywires]

I think a hotel fire would be far more dramatic - an unfamiliar place (if it's an unfamiliar hotel), a terrifying situation, trying to find exits etc, could be very emotional.

For the smoke-related questions, I found this as a reference on the wiki 'Smoke inhalation' page. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/smoke...article_em.htm

For some reason it won't let me read the papers on ScienceDirect though.

[chrispenycate]

It depends a fair amount on what the fire is burning, both for time to go under and time to recover. If your walls are covered with polystyrene acoustic panels, your wiring's been in a decade and is PVC insulated, pipes are plastic and bedspread synthetic fibre, the various vapours in the smoke are going to give much more interesting reactions than wooden beams and floorboards, where the problem is largely carbon monoxide poisoning the blood, and shortage of oxygen. 'Course, the layer of soot in your lungs doesn't do you much good, either, but smokers have been doing that to themselves deliberately for centuries.

When it's only lack of oxygen (I believe that's often due, in hotels, to air conditioners cooling the heavy carbon dioxide which then sinks down to floors below the actual combustion, which would normally be unaffected as the chimney effect of the hot gasses rising pulled the heat to higher floors) people can just go to sleep, and be unawakenable by alarm bells and sirens.

[Mouse]

Ah thanks, AMW, that's a better page than I'd found.

I think I'm leaning towards hotel fire (though five mins ago I was leaning towards house!) as I think I'll need the confusion to get certain things to work.

Thanks Chrispy! Sleep and not wake up... I'd not thought of that.

[allmywires]

OK, SD is letting me in now and I found something on treatment (realised halfway through it's about animals but I assume the same holds true for humans):

'Because of the high incidence of sudden deterioration and decompensation in cases of smoke inhalation, it is recommended that exposed animals be observed closely for 6 to 8 hours postexposure before they are released. No smoke inhalation victims should be discharged until they are asymptomatic, are normal on physical examination and ancillary tests, and are otherwise stable. All discharged animals should be seen again within 72 hours to ensure that underlying pulmonary injuries are not progressing.'

I like research.

[Mouse]

Originally Posted by allmywires

OK, SD is letting me in now and I found something on treatment (realised halfway through it's about animals but I assume the same holds true for humans):

'Because of the high incidence of sudden deterioration and decompensation in cases of smoke inhalation, it is recommended that exposed animals be observed closely for 6 to 8 hours postexposure before they are released. No smoke inhalation victims should be discharged until they are asymptomatic, are normal on physical examination and ancillary tests, and are otherwise stable. All discharged animals should be seen again within 72 hours to ensure that underlying pulmonary injuries are not progressing.'

I like research.

Blimey. I'd spend most my time Googling what half those words mean!

I think I need it to be hotel fire. Though neighbouring buildings are more likely to be involved too... unless I find a different hotel.

Oh, that leads me to another question! Would I be ok to burn down a hotel that really did exist? Or would I be better making a hotel up?

[allmywires]

Basically pop 'em in a hyperbaric chamber and try to reverse the oxygen deprivation. I don't think, unless the poisoning is severe, there would be any long-lasting effects.

Originally Posted by Mouse

Would I be ok to burn down a hotel that really did exist? Or would I be better making a hotel up?

I don't see why not. I doubt the real owners will sue you for fictional arson!

[Mouse]

True!

I'm now thinking house again now though. A house party would give me the numbers...

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Mouse

I think I'm leaning towards hotel fire (though five mins ago I was leaning towards house!) as I think I'll need the confusion to get certain things to work.

How about person/family who live in a hotel. Such as the managers/owners or happen to live there due to other circumstances.

For dramatic effect your characters could escape the fire, but develop problems several hours later.

Originally Posted by Mouse

I'm now thinking house again now though. A house party would give me the numbers...

I think you need to figure out what the result of the fire is. That should then help you with its location.

Originally Posted by Mouse

Would I be ok to burn down a hotel that really did exist? Or would I be better making a hotel up?

Views will vary on this one. If you have a lot of confusion with the evacuation and kill off characters the hotel could argue you are misrepresenting them and their contingency measures, such as fire prevention and evacuation routes.

If the hotel had previously suffered a fire they could argue people could become confused with the actual facts and what you shown in the story.

We seem to be taking onboard the American culture of sue first ask questions later. It's all about brand image. If they feel you have damaged their brand they could decide to take it further.

[alchemist]

I am a doctor, but no good for fires (unless it's a fire in your soul). What I would say, though, is don't burn down a real hotel in your story. The potential down sides (angry people) outweigh the potential benefits (whatever they are)

[TheTomG]

I'd skip the real hotel idea too. If something ever did happen to that particular real hotel, guess what will be brought up - your book!

If immediate drama, I'd do hotel. A house is small, people (if awake and at a party) are much more likely to be able to escape, it's usually not far from any particular location to a door or window, and most parties take place downstairs. With a hotel you could be several floors from an exit, and would have no clear idea of where you needed to go to get out.

If loss and emotional consequence AFTER the fire, I'd go with house.

Hope this helps!

[Vertigo]

An advantage of the house is that, unlike hotels, houses still often have no smoke detectors so more chance of fire remaining undetected longer.

Of course I don't know what period you writing in, so that may be totally irrelevant.

[I, Brian]

I am reliably informed by friends who were in a house fire, that not only is smoke the biggest discomfort, but as one described after: it felt like smoking 400 Malboro all at once. And that feeling stays after for a few days.

Just in case of help.