Wonder if this is the official cause or just the reporters take on the cause? How about improper storage of combustibles too close to a heating source?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34484381/ns/local_news-baltimore_md/

The headline conflicts with the story. Maybe the editor ought to read his own paper.

Stuff gets stacked on the stove ... then catches fire when the stove is turned on? Who could have anticipated that ever happening?

Yea but the circuit was turned on. That was the cause. No fault to the operator or the person who stored the junk. It's the breaker's fault. It should have known better than to let itself be turned on.

Just like when someone plugs an electric heater into an 18/2 extension cord, causing an "electrical" fire. No, it was caused by carelessness, not electricity.

In this case, I'd agree that the reporter's take was way off.

The people who write headlines seem to never actually read the story.
I also question a lot of these "electrical" fire reports.
You know this one was reported as electrical, not stupidity. That skews the statistics and allows groups like NFPA to justify dumb stuff like the AFCI requirement.

$ 3.5 mil in damages added into the running totals of 'electrical fires'. I question the fire reports that I see that are 'electrical', of which 99 to 100% are 'stupidity' that no AFCI/GFCI/TR/WR would prevent. Next code cycle, perhaps we may have a mandated "SFCI".

(Stupidity Fault Current Interupter)

I wonder if any SFCI's will come back to the QA lab painted over, packed with plaster, showing signs of being hammered into the box, with a note attached, "Doesn't work"?

Along this same line I remember an editorial in EC&M back in the 70's complaining about poor fire cause attribution. It cited a report where the fire investigator said that the source of the fire could not be determined since the building did not have electrical service.

Tinkerer, I was on scene the morning after a fatal fire in a hotel room. My job was to 'make safe' the electrical.

This fire had been so intense that the couplings had melted off the EMT. Still, the point of origen was fairly clear; there was little left of the bed but the metal parts of the box springs. Chalk one up to smoking in bed.

This all aside, the adjuster from the insurance company was just determined to attribute the fire to 'electrical.' This was despite the scene having already been dissected by the crime-scene folks (there had also been some indication there might have been foul play).

I am another one who thinks "electrical" is a quick way out without actually finding the cause of a fire. Unless they can actually tell me some story that makes sense they are just throwing a wild guess out there that nobody will dispute. The more fires that get attributed to some nebulous "electrical" cause, the more plausible it becomes.
The down side of that laziness is how easy it was to justify things like the AFCI requirement.

As long as there's electric and tobacco there will always be an "easy out" for the cause of a fire.

I do believe fire departments try to come up with a cause that allows their employer (the taxpayer) to collect on their insurance, even if they do think it might be "fiscally induced lightning".
Fires do seem to be caused by "for sale" signs with weeds around them.

As a retired Firefighter, I have filled out my share of fire reports. Unless arson is suspected, the cause is listed on the report as best as the persons skill an knowledge can provide. There is no interaction with ether the property owner or city with the exception of questioning the owner as to the room layout and any information he/she can provide. Many space heater fires will be listed as electrical when in fact they can be caused by being too close to combustibles or an overloaded extension cord. Some reports were very detailed due to the expertise of the person filling it out, but most are general information only. Not a lot of electrical minded brains in the fire service. NFPA has always pressured the fire service to be more detailed in report writing as this information is used to develop codes we use. Still most firefighters lack good electrical skills.

I guess that who determines the cause depends on what part of the world you are in.

Here in our city both the arson task force (trained PD detectives and Fire dept loss prevention inspectors ) and the Provincial Fire Commissioner's office investigate fires to determine the cause. In the rural areas the Fire Commissioner's office does the investigation with help from the local volunteer departments.

I believe there is a tax paid by the insurance companies based on the amount of property insurance they sell in Manitoba to fund the commissioner's office.

I recall a garage fire that was determined to be electrical. I told the Chief that was impossible, there was no electrical service to the garage. He told me I did not have enough experience to determine the cause of the fire and to be quiet. When hte insurance adjuster looked at the scene, he asked what the cause was. I told him arson, as there was a tool box missing from the garage. I then showed him where I found the tool box. He asked about the electrical cause on the fire report. I said the report was in error, there was no electrical service in the garage. I was my garage, and there was no electrical. I have often wondered how many fire reports are not true.

Not to disagree. but 62% of the fire fighters I know Are Electricians.

Right now we have these 2 psychos starting fires-
40 miles apart from each other.
1 town 12 fires in 2 days- 2 deaths.
the other 5 fires in 11 days.

Let's get one thing straight here, Fire Investigation is a science in itself, to label any fire as "electrical" because you can't be bloody well bothered to work out the real cause is nothing short of sloppiness, it is also doing your own kind a dis-service.

Any "fire investigator" that goes down that avenue needs to find a new job flipping burgers, after all, that is the wage he deserves.

It's no wonder fire investigators in the US have such a poor name.

I still don't think we should throw the fire investigators under the bus as a whole. I personally blame the media for the hype they throw into news reporting. For some reason, the phrase "electrical fire" adds more drama to the news article than the typical causes for household fires.

Typical scenario: News reporter observes a firefighter looking at a burned wire on the scene and presto, it becomes an electrical fire as the report states:

"Montgomery County firefighter examines charred wiring as cause for apartment building fire that left sixteen families homeless. Story at eleven".

Or:

"Utility workers making repairs at a local office building may have caused a three alarm fire, forcing the evacuation of 200 workers."

OK, maybe the utility workers were there to change a meter? Maybe it was the phone company that was there earlier? Just because they were on the premises earlier and someone mentions this to the media, all of a sudden it becomes an electrical fire.

Long time ago, in college in the 70's I was in the library reading a chapter in a book written for fire investigators. Was a slow day. It cautioned that just because you find some badly charred and burnt wiring, it doesn't mean that it caused the fire. That a fire caused by something else will likely get to and find some wire that was in good condition and damage it. And that damage may assist the fire further, but it can't be blamed as the initial cause.

There are at least three distin ct issues at work in these sorts of erroneous reports. IMO, these 'convenient' errors are just as bad as if there were deliberate lies made, as they preclude there being any intelligent discussion of whatever the issue may be.

The first, as I noted at the start of the thread, is that the headline was contrary to the body of the story. That story could have been dead-on accurate, and it would not have mattered; the headline was determined to say something else. This is but another example of the shoddy reporting we see daily. How on earth we're supposed to make intelligent choices, even vote properly, with the media telling us pure fiction excaped me. Such 'journalism' needs to be recognized as the direct threat to our freedom that it is.

The second is the contempt often shown when someone tosses out a meaningless answer to a question. I will admit to being guilty of this myself - especially when the question was not only inane, but I was clearly the wrong person to answer it.
For example, I was once up a ladder, working on getting power to a sign for a new Chinese restaurant. A passer-by wasn't about to accept my answer that I was just the sign guy, I had no idea when they would open, etc. Their edless questions continued to interfere with my work, when they asked what would be on the menu (!!) Well, in finest form, I replied that they could yee the menu at animal control. They thanked me, started walking away (finally!) ... and stopped. I think they finally got the point.
I've seen / had investigators toss out throw-away non-answers as a matter of routine, sort of a 'don't bother me, you don't need to know' response. Even when presented with a patently legitimate request, they will often reflexively resist sharing any thoughts or information. Sometimes there's a reason; for example, I have often altered setails of events in casual conversation, just to keep it easy to later tell the real witnesses from the story tellers.
In the case of fire investigations, a real investigator is going to be reluctant to 'give lessons' in how to start a fire. Unfortunatley, these 'clever' answers also work to undermine your confidence in the system.

Which brings us to the final category of non-answer: there's an agenda. The classic instance to this is the current 'climategate' scandal. Researchers have been shown to have deliberately mis-represented data so as to further the acceptance of the researchers' pet theory.
This experience seems oddly familiar to me, as the AFCI discussion has been rife with assertions of data that has never been disclosed. I know, because I've asked ... and every request gets answered with the smae assertion that there is data, but never the data itself. Unlike 'climategate,' though, we have not yet had any proof surface of fraud.
I think you can understand why I'm sceptical, though.

LOL!!

:Trumpy:

'It's no wonder fire investigators in the US have such a poor name.'

I'll take exception to that!!
We have some of the BEST!!!!

We all understand, Fire fighters are not Investigators.
Lets keep it in context.

K, now I feel better.

Let me clarify one thing, on large fires, a fire investigator is sent to the fire. Fire investigators mostly due a great and accurate job of finding the cause of the fire. The fire calls I am talking about are the ones that cause minim damage. These make up a vast majority of the NFPA fire reports. Most of these fires do not warrant a fire inspector be called. In small FD, a fire inspector may make every fire. My reference is to large FD departments in large cities. These departments have a few inspectors to cover a large area and only respond to larger fires. Dryer fires are very common due to years of lint build-up. Although this is an electrical appliance, the fire is not caused by electrical malfunction. But I have made fire calls on a dryer where the cause was caused by a dryer cord shorting against the chassis where it enters the dryer. This is electrical. The details you put in the fire report help the NFPA & NEMA develop codes and rules to address these problems.