Showing posts with label Fireworks: 2007 Editorials. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fireworks: 2007 Editorials. Show all posts

January 2, 2008

No Intelligent Design here...

LAAG loves Darwin and his pesky "theory" of evolution. Well the good folks over at the DarwinAwards.com provided us with this gem that we want to make sure all the gene pool contributors in Lakewood take a good look at (even you pyros over at pyro universe) as this could have been you. But there is always July 2008! We wish Evolution worked faster. Of course the reason fireworks users don't fear the Darwin Awards (or doing stupid stuff) is they don't believe in evolution! They know they were "intelligently designed". Fireworks really do help promote evolution when you think about it.

The Darwin Awards was named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, and commemorates those who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it.

Electronic Fireworks
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2007-04.html
2007 Darwin Award Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin
(1 January 2007, Netherlands) The first Darwin Award of 2007 goes to Serge Sluijters, 36, who thought it reasonable to hover over an illegal professional firework and light the electronic ignition with an open flame. But this was not a traditional wick; it was a device designed for precision timing. The flame triggered an immediate launch, and the fireworks catapulted upwards, killing our amateur pyrotechnician enroute to a spectacular burst across the night sky.

Serge had purchased the firework legally in Belgium, but then transported it illegally into the Netherlands. His father disputed the notion that Serge was careless, characterizing his son as a man who gave due consideration to his acts. A witness told reporters, "His face disappeared. If someone has no face left, you know it's serious."

Every year, another idiot gets nominated for a Darwin Award for this same reason. Please, readers, keep your itchy fingers off the triggers of these dangerous fireworks!

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™

click here to receive LAAG posts by email

December 13, 2007

Inviting the fox into the hen house

click here to read rest of article

Oh man...we saw this coming. This is really simple for the fireworks peddlers. Just make sure you pack the "citizen task force" with people biased (secretly or not) in your favor. Fortunately here they dont have a majority but that is only members who have announced their biases (and were put forward by the Fireworks industry) This is a loose loose situation. Fireworks companies preach education just like the cigarette companies. LAAG has seen from Fire Department studies that eliminating all fireworks (legal and illegal) has the effect of making enforcement easier and actually decreases the use of illegal fireworks. Anytime the fireworks industry is suggesting that people put their faith in some recently passed legislation (such as senate bill 839) you can be sure that that industry had a lot to do with its crafting via lobbyists and other "persuasive individuals" and methods. Senate bill 839 is worthless and is just another unproven unfunded mandate used as window dressing by the fireworks industry in an attempt to put further pressure on out of state sellers already stealing CA peddlers "safe and sane" business.

New citizen task force focuses on fireworks
By Elaine Larsen EDITOR AND PUBLISHER
Article Launched: 12/12/2007 01:13:07 PM PST

Fireworks and Pacifica. Legal and illegal. Just what should the relationship between pyrotechnics and the community be?

That's going to be the fiery question for a newly formed citizen task force recently established by the Pacifica City Council.

Task Force members appointed are Deborah Joves, Dr. Kimberly Conner, Julie Hartsell (who is a PB&R commissioner), Bernie Sifry, Bill Gray (TN football coach), Jeanne Matysiak, Allen Hale and Lionel Emde.

The mission of the task force is to research options for dealing with the ongoing problem of illegal fireworks that violators manage to set off each July 4 holiday under cover of darkness and obscured by the smoke and hubbub of safe and sane or legal fireworks.

It's an explosive problem to be sure -- how to put a cap on illegal bottle rockets and M-80s that cause mayhem in neighborhoods, yet not penalize those who enjoy safe and sane fireworks that are an old-fashioned tradition in Pacifica and fund sports and other programs for thousands of kids.

Police Chief Jim Saunders said he hand-picked a task force that hopefully reflects a full spectrum of interests. "Their purpose is to provide options for council," he said when the matter came before council late last month.

"The
Advertisement
Task Force's direction is that there is no direction. They need to research and provide options," he said.

The only citizens who spoke were concerned about a brief reference to banning all fireworks in Saunders' staff report. As sports group boosters, they were concerned that would be the ultimate outcome of any task force recommendation.

One speaker said she was concerned the task force was a "back door" way of starting a ban on all fireworks.

TNT Fireworks spokesman Dennis Revell
also voiced a similar concern. He said the city should be focusing on a senate bill, 839, recently signed by the governor, which will throw more manpower and resources toward stopping the suppliers of illegal fireworks from bringing them over the border into California or selling them on the Internet in the first place. He also suggested the public education was another key to helping solve the problem.

Saunders said the council and community should not be fixated on the word "ban" in his staff report, noting that he was simply trying to open the door for full discussion of all options.

"At least three members of the task force were proposed by the fireworks company. We tried to make it a mixed group. Frankly, I'm open to anything. I wanted to leave it as open as possible, not leaning one way or another," Saunders said.

The chief's report also mentioned other options such as limiting the times that fireworks may be ignited or possibly limiting the locations that fireworks can be used in the city.

"This is not a complete list of options but only a few a council left up to the task force to research and provide direction to council," Saunders' staff report reads.

"The idea is not to limit the task force, but a ban is not the direction we're going," said Mayor Pete DeJarnatt.

There was some further discussion among council members about defining the task force's options, including an emphasis on enforcement, but the majority consensus ultimately was to leave all options open for research and discussion.

Chief Saunder said although the task force might well come up with an alternative funding source to replace the sale of safe and sane fireworks -- an "ah-ha" type solution," he also said he understands that a ban on fireworks is clearly not the direction the council is going.

"I'm anticipating there will be nine or ten options, but will make it clear that the council is not interested in a ban so that option better be at the bottom of the list," he said.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




November 2, 2007

Why corporate "lobbying" is a problem

This is not a new issue. Govt. regulators "perks travel" (really disguised vacations) paid for by trade groups comprised of companies that they are supposed to regulate. LAAG did not think this was going on at the CPSC level (just large agencies like FDA), but apparently the fireworks industry (most notably in bold below) and others are now accused of the practice. Now you wonder why the CPSC was so slow on the uptake on the lead problem in children's toys. So now how safe do you feel using so called "safe and sane" fireworks? Do you think the CPSC is really checking into their safety?

LAAG also did a little checking beyond what the Washington Post did and found that Tad Trout, the president of American Promotional Events West (doing business as TNT Fireworks) was, as of 2006, the president of the Board of Directors of the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory and regularly speaks on their behalf.


Industries paid for regulators' travel
Heads of product safety agency took trips from manufacturers, lobbyists
By Elizabeth Williamson
The Washington Post
updated 12:56 a.m. PT, Fri., Nov. 2, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21589678/

The chief of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and her predecessor have taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children's furniture industries and others they regulate, according to internal records obtained by The Washington Post. Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.

The records document nearly 30 trips since 2002 by the agency's acting chairman, Nancy Nord, and the previous chairman, Hal Stratton, that were paid for in full or in part by trade associations or manufacturers of products ranging from space heaters to disinfectants. The airfares, hotels and meals totaled nearly $60,000, and the destinations included China, Spain, San Francisco, New Orleans and a golf resort on Hilton Head Island, S.C.

Notable among the trips -- commonly described by officials as "gift travel" -- was an 11-day visit to China and Hong Kong in 2004 by Stratton, then chairman. The $11,000 trip was paid for by the American Fireworks Standards Laboratory, an industry group based in an office suite in Bethesda [conveniently where the CPSC is headquartered...LAAG editor] whose only laboratories are in Asia. The CPSC says that at the time, the group had no pending regulatory requests. But since then the fireworks group has urged the commission to adopt its safety standards, an idea that is still pending, according to an organization newsletter.

Intensified criticism
Consumer groups and lawmakers intensified their criticism of the CPSC this summer after several highly publicized recalls of Chinese-made toys that contained hazardous levels of lead. Critics have long charged that the agency has become too close to regulated industries, opting for "voluntary" standards and repeatedly choosing not to take legal action against businesses that refuse to recall dangerous products.

Government-wide travel regulations state that officials from agencies such as the CPSC should not accept money for travel from nonfederal sources if the payments "would cause a reasonable person . . . to question the integrity of agency programs or operations."

But CPSC officials defend the industry-paid trips as a way for the agency to be in contact with manufacturing officials and hear their concerns despite a limited travel budget. Commission spokeswoman Julie Vallese said the agency's counsel and its ethics officers conducted "a full conflict-of-interest analysis" of the trips and stand behind their decisions.

"The mission of the agency and the benefits to consumer safety are two factors that are taken into consideration in approving gift travel," she said. Reports of the trips are submitted to the Office of Government Ethics, she added.

Several ethics experts and lawyers say the two administrators' travel records, some of which they reviewed at the request of The Post, suggest a conflict of interest.

"This is a blatant violation of the ethics code," said Craig Holman, an expert on governmental ethics law for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. The rules allow nonfederal sources to pay for trips, "but not if you're a private party with business pending before the agency," he said.

Differing travel patterns
The agency's travel patterns during the Bush administration, detailed in internal agency documents, differ from those of the Clinton era. Ann Brown, who served as chairman from 1994 to 2001, traveled only at the expense of the agency or of media organizations that sponsored appearances where she announced product recalls, according to the documents.

"We hated to have an industry pay for our staff for anything," said Pam Gilbert, a lawyer who was executive director of the agency under Brown.

The records show that Nord and Stratton repeatedly accepted gift travel for events from industries subject to CPSC enforcement. In February 2006, the Toy Industry Association provided Nord with rail fare, two nights in a hotel, meals -- and even $51 to pay her Union Station parking bill -- to attend the American International Toy Fair in New York, one of the industry's biggest product exhibitions.

Joan Lawrence, the association's vice president who oversees toy safety, said that "I have heard some enforcement officials say that they consider attending vital" because "they are able to see new products before they hit retail shelves" and suggest safety improvements. She added that "approximately 50 percent of the CPSC budget is used for children's products."

But Lawrence could not say why, given the importance of the event and the industry, the agency did not pay for its own travel. "If they came up with the money, that's okay," she said. "The educational component, of course, is our priority, and that's why we pay for the chairman."

Vallese, the CPSC spokeswoman, said Nord gave two speeches at the meeting, toured "new toy exhibits," watched "product demonstrations" and participated in "product safety discussions."

In a presentation to a trade group of product regulators and manufacturers last year, Nord said the agency was "working aggressively" to limit deaths from residential fires and carbon monoxide poisoning, according to an account published on the group's Web site. She noted that "fuel-fired heating equipment" is linked to more than 300 deaths a year.

Makers of that equipment are represented by the Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, for which Stratton, Nord's predecessor, was a guest speaker at two annual meetings. In 2003 Stratton spoke at the group's meeting on Hilton Head Island in South Carolina. In 2005, he spoke at its annual meeting in Orlando.

The meetings drew more than 300 manufacturers' representatives and spouses for seminars, a dinner dance and golf. While the association's manufacturers are regulated by three other government agencies, its vice president, Joseph Mattingly, said he could not recall paying for any attendees from those agencies.

Stratton said: "My view was we needed to engage industries and not only tell them what we expected but also to learn what they were thinking. . . . You can't do that sitting in the ivory tower at the CPSC."

The records also detail several trips that were paid for by lawyers who represent manufacturers in product liability lawsuits.

In February, for example, Nord accepted more than $2,000 in travel and accommodations from the Defense Research Institute to attend its meeting in New Orleans on "product litigation trends," according to her report. The institute is made up of more than 20,000 corporate defense lawyers. In 2004, Stratton attended the group's meeting in Barcelona, at a cost to the group of $915 for his hotel room.

'Cordial and accommodating'
They are the biggest government agency that would have impact on the stuff that we do," said Steve Coronado, a former chairman of the group's product liability committee, which has 3,000 members. "They've been very cordial and accommodating and gracious," he said of the agency's past three chiefs.

Coronado said that Nord was the group's main presenter in New Orleans and that she briefed 1,000 lawyers about "what their processes and procedures are, rules and regulations changes." He added: "I don't think it was a very politically oriented presentation." A CPSC spokesman did not respond to a request for direct comment by Nord on this trip and others.

Coronado said Brown, the Clinton-era agency chairman, also spoke to the group. But agency records of her non-CPSC-financed travel do not list that trip, suggesting that it was not paid for by the lawyers group. Gilbert, the former CPSC executive director, called DRI's contribution toward Stratton's hotel bill in Spain "amazing."

Stratton said the group "wanted to know where the CPSC was going on various product issues, and they wanted to know what the companies [the lawyers represented] could expect, what the government was thinking in regard to their issues." He said lawyers who sue companies over product-related injuries never invited him to speak.

Stratton gave a general defense of his more than 25 trips, which included a trip to China that the Toy Industry Association paid $8,000 to help finance. "Everybody wants to see the chairman," he said. The fireworks group that paid for a separate China trip did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment about its contacts with the CPSC.

Some say the commission's approach to gift travel points to a Bush administration philosophy that favors engaging corporations in policymaking that affects them. "This administration apparently has taken the position that speaking and appearing before the regulated community, even where there are enforcement matters pending, does not create the appearance of a conflict," said Kenneth Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps.

Different lines
"These are difficult and subjective lines to be drawn," he said. "Prior administrations have drawn that line in a different place."

Nord was a corporate lawyer at Eastman Kodak before her appointment. Stratton led Lawyers for Bush in his home state of New Mexico during the president's 2000 campaign and co-founded the Rio Grande Foundation, which advocates limited government and supports free-market economic principles.

The CPSC refused a request to review copies of internal documents related to several trips or its internal gift-travel regulations. But the records document a pattern of travel that varies from the stated habits of top officials at four other regulatory agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, "does not accept host-paid travel reimbursements or in-kind payments from any organization regulated by the agency," said spokesman John Heine. Food and Drug Administration rules likewise do not permit outside travel payments from regulated companies, organizations "engaged in any lobbying activities" or those that receive "more than ten percent of their income from a corporate source," among other restrictions.

The Federal Communications Commission bans travel paid for by regulated companies or others with business before the agency, for officials from division heads upward, according to spokesman Clyde Ensslin.

F. Gary Davis, who helped establish the Office of Government Ethics in 1978 and served as its general counsel and deputy director until 2000, said the government-wide regulations were imposed "to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety when you're dealing with a prohibited source." He said that it is conceivable that some of the CPSC's industry-sponsored trips were justified but that in those cases, the agency should be prepared to make its decision-making records available.


Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™
>



July 3, 2007

Your tax dollars hard at work supporting safe and sane fireworks sales

Well it looks like LAAG efforts after the March 2006 Miller explosion (and Sheriff's department embarrassment) are starting to pay off. We realize of course that all this enforcement is very expensive and we are not too sure how many of the fireworks in the Carson or Watts supply houses (see stories below) would make their way to Lakewood. However as the Sheriff department covers many cities and county land within the County this so called "Lakewood Fireworks Suppression Task Force" (as Lt. Terry Benjestorf of the Lakewood Sheriff's Station refers to it on CBS2 news) should be renamed the "LA County Fireworks Suppression Task Force" and funded by all cities served by the Sheriffs, LAPD and smaller departments, not just focused on Lakewood or using Lakewood's budget, which already went up nearly 7.5% just for Sheriff's protection likely due to fireworks "suppression" efforts. The fireworks problem is at least county wide if not state wide. The NBC spin on the story does make it appear a few other agencies were involved (but no details on budgets, manpower or costs) and does not spin the story as much in the Lakewood Sheriff's department favor.

Also we don't see any "legal" safe and sane fireworks companies stepping up to help out with these costs even though our tax dollars are being used to protect their sales turf from illegal fireworks. And from our other articles on this the cities with safe and sane fireworks are clearly attracting more illegal fireworks.

Also, not to belittle these efforts, but this is rather like the "war on drugs" that has been raging over the last 20 years. Lots of people in in prison and lots of tax dollars spent but no relief in sight. I think the "war on fireworks" may be headed in the same direction.

Another issue. The media is really good at repeating the pablum they fed by law enforcement agencies but not very good on follow through. What will happen to all these arrests? Will the there be prosecutions? Will they be successful? Will there be trial or plea bargains? What will the sentences be. Of course LAAG will have to follow up as I am sure we will not here from the Sheriff's Dept. or the media again on this aspect of the "story".

Finally, it needs to be emphasized that until LAAG came along these types of efforts by the Sheriff's department were unheard of. Local Government only responds to political or legal pressure. No pressure no action. For this reason LAAG is not going away any time soon.


Originally published Tuesday, July 03, 2007
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/8296017.html
Carson bust nets ton of fireworks
By Larry Altman
Staff Writer

Deputies seized more than a ton of illegal fireworks and arrested seven people in a pre-Independence Day crackdown at a Carson house over the weekend, authorities said Monday.

In a separate case, deputies discovered about 200 pounds of illegal fireworks and arrested a Carson man who unwittingly sold some to undercover deputies he met on the Internet.

In the first case, deputies from the Lakewood sheriff's station working a fireworks task force developed information that led them to a house in the 22200 block of Marbella Avenue.

"We suspected them of supplying the fireworks to people, including residents in the community," sheriff's Lt. Terry Benjestorf said.

Undercover deputies purchased illegal fireworks from someone who had obtained them at the Marbella house, and conducted surveillance operations there, he said.

After stopping a car with three occupants leaving the house, deputies discovered they had a significant amount of fireworks.

They returned to the house, served a search warrant early Saturday and discovered 2,000 pounds of illegal fireworks.

"It's illegal from the standpoint they are not safe and sane, fire-marshal approved," Benjestorf said. "They are aerial-type rockets and firecrackers."

Benjestorf described the Marbella residence as a "supply house." Other people purchased fireworks there to resell.

"It's very dangerous," Benjestorf said. "When you consider that on average about 20 to 25 percent of the gross weight of any pyrotechnic device is the explosive powder."

Deputies arrested two adults at the house, in addition to four people and a teenager in cars leaving the residence.

Their names were not immediately available.

In the second case Sunday night, Carson deputies arrested Gerald Castaneda, 27, after he allegedly sold illegal fireworks to undercover officers he met through an Internet site.

"We set up a sting operation and we contacted an individual who was willing to sell us fireworks," Carson sheriff's Sgt. Chris Perez said. "We met him in the city of Carson and he showed up with a quantity of illegal fireworks."

Although safe-and-sane fireworks are allowed in Carson, aerial and artillery-type fireworks are not.

Deputies searched Castaneda's house on J Street and discovered 150 to 200 pounds of illegal fireworks, Perez said.

The 1,000 pieces included large mortars and rockets.

larry.altman@dailybreeze.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.knbc.com/news/13613746/detail.html
Nearly Five Tons Of Illegal Fireworks Seized From LA Area Homes
Illegal Explosives Found In Watts, Carson Homes

video http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=125628

POSTED: 8:08 am PDT July 3, 2007

LOS ANGELES -- Nearly five tons of illegal fireworks were recovered from homes in Watts and Carson in separate raids over the weekend, authorities said.

At least two people were facing possible charges of possession and distribution of illegal fireworks following the seizure of more than 6,000 pounds of the contraband at a Watts residence Sunday, authorities said.

A multi-agency investigation led to the seizure at 1250 E. 100th St., near Central Avenue, about 8:40 Sunday night, said D'Lisa Davies of the Los Angeles Fire Department.

The fireworks were found primarily in a garage and van at the location, she said.

Los Angeles Fire Department arson investigators were notified Sunday about 4 p.m. by Compton Fire Department arson investigators about the illegal sale and distribution of fireworks from a Los Angeles home, Officer Mike Lopez of the Los Angeles Police Department's Media Relations Section.

The Compton investigators had followed a white Chevrolet van to the home after spotting a van that had been used earlier to sell fireworks in various area parks.

They had also watched individuals unloading boxes of fireworks and stacking them in the back yard, Lopez said.

LAFD arson investigators were dispatched and discovered that the home was actually in an unincorporated area and the van was gone.

A license plate and description of the van was given to the Los Angeles Police Department's Southeast Division. The van was located at 8:15 p.m. after it returned to the original residence.

A woman was standing outside the van when authorities arrived. They asked the driver if they could look inside the van and when she gave them verbal consent, they found about 200 pounds of illegal fireworks, Lopez said.

Los Angeles police then detained the woman while the LAPD's Criminal Conspiracy Section, the bomb squad and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were notified.

The home's owner gave written consent and officials searched the garage where the bomb squad removed 6,325 pounds of the contraband.

Los Angeles County arson officials also became involved because the home was in an unincorporated area. However, the Los Angeles police and fire departments remained the lead agencies because they were already on scene, Lopez said.

The two suspects were scheduled to be arrested for possession and sales of illegal fireworks, Lopez said.

The LAPD will handle the evidence of fireworks and the fire department will hand the arrest and filing of the case, he said.

The arrests in Watts followed the arrest of seven people, including one juvenile, in a Carson home the previous day.

More than a ton -- 2,400 pounds -- were recovered at a Carson residence early Saturday morning in the 22200 block of Marbella Avenue, said Lt. Terry Benjestorf of the Lakewood Sheriff's Station.

Members of the Lakewood Fireworks Suppression Task Force conducted the investigation, Benjestorf said.

Benjestorf told NBC4 that two men originally approached undercover sheriff's investigators and "attempted to sell them a large quantity of illegal fireworks.

Both raids prevented what could have been major problems.

In the case of the Watts arrest, one county firefighter said that "if an ignition source was introduced to that amount of fireworks, you would have a devastating effect on the neighborhood."

Los Angeles County Fire Department Battalion Chief John Miller said with weather conditions as they are, the danger of explosion was "severe. I can't stress that enough. Severe. The smallest spark would cause a catastrophe we haven't seen in a long time."

Names of the suspects in the cases have not been released.




July 2, 2007

Costa Mesa and Lakewood CA share a bond of fire...

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/homepage/article_1751240.php

Monday, July 2, 2007
Late-breaking letters: Sparks fly over fireworks on the Fourth
Posted July 02, 2007

As a 38-year resident of Costa Mesa, I feel a need to apologize to all the surrounding cities that prohibit fireworks. Our city seems to be one of the few that doesn't grasp the need for a fireworks ban. I know that all the high schools, soccer teams, etc., say it's their main fund-raiser. But at what cost? It terrifies animals and small children and causes injuries. The fire and police are diverted for fireworks calls.

I know what they sell is legal but it is difficult and almost impossible to know which is legal and which is illegal. It opens the door for all the m-80s, bottle rockets, etc. I was embarrassed while driving into Huntington Beach to see a huge warning sign at the border of Costa Mesa announcing no fireworks and a possible traffic search for fireworks.

Again, I apologize for Costa Mesa polluting all the non-fireworks cities because of the greed and disregard for the general safety of the public by the non-profits and schools. What a lesson we are teaching, especially in this year of serious drought. Happy Fourth of July. God bless America.

Mary Spadoni

Costa Mesa




June 27, 2007

We have heard it all before...

Well this article below by Mr Dillow is really just repeating everything that LAAG said last year. Nothing new here. The Fireworks companies have learned that the best way to insulate themselves from attacks is to jump in bed with the so called "booster/sports groups/clubs" and get them to make the fundraising argument for them. Again this has nothing to do with July 4 or patriotism. Its money. The problem of course as pointed out below and here before at LAAG: The money raised by these groups selling smoke and fire does not outweigh taxpayers funds to police the activity and the ancillary problems they create. But no one cares about taxpayer dollars. LA County Sheriffs clearly dont as they buy new SUV's on fireworks overtime and love to accommodate the city. The small number of people benefiting from the fireworks funds dont complain. And last but not least the US distributors of the Chinese work product surely are not complaining. Free labor at the stands, free police protection and they make their whole years profit in one day. God bless the 4th of July! Oh and dont think LAAG has missed the fireworks companies "safety" public relations blitz (BS) either. Fire danger? What fire danger they say...what about lightening...and on and on it goes.

The point is the city would be better off giving the damn money to the clubs than spending twice that amount trying to control the ancillary problems that "so called" "Safe and Sane" fireworks attract. (see related article here) Plus as an added bonus we could say good bye to all the air, noise and water pollution. Let alone the fires and injuries. All in all quite a silly proposition. But politicians cant say no to anyone fearing they may loose a vote. And in a city where it only takes 2,700 votes to get elected out of 80,000 residents, those votes are important.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

How sane are 'safe' fireworks?

by GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow@aol.com

The way Russ McDonald and some other folks in Garden Grove see it, there's no such thing as "safe and sane" fireworks. On the contrary, they think that allowing the private sale, possession and use of any kind of pyrotechnic devices over the Independence Day holiday is completely unsafe and dangerously insane.

"You can't believe how much fear there is here over these cotton-pickin' fireworks," says Russ, 61, part of a group of residents who are trying to have all fireworks banned from the city. "They're afraid of their homes being burned down, and their pets are being scared out of their minds. It's gotten completely out of hand. People are coming into the city from places all over where they don't allow fireworks to shoot them off here."

In fact, Russ, a Vietnam veteran, says that on the Fourth of July, "It sounds like mortar rounds going off. It sounds like we're under attack."

Of course, this issue isn't new. As one of only five Orange County cities that still allow "safe and sane" fireworks – the others are Buena Park, Stanton, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa – there has long been tension between pro- and anti-fireworks factions. (Generally speaking, legal "safe and sane" fireworks can only spark and whistle and smoke, while illegal fireworks are ones that explode or shoot into the air.)

Opponents say that "safe and sane" fireworks are simply convenient camouflage for the even more dangerous illegal fireworks, which fire officials say are readily available from out of state or foreign sources. Last Fourth of July there were no less than 1,200 incidents of illegal fireworks use in Garden Grove, and three buildings were set ablaze, with damages of about $165,000.

For obvious reasons, it's a problem that city police and fire officials wish they didn't have to deal with. They say that the $22,000 the city brings in from permit fees for fireworks sales – the 45 or so permits are issued only to non-profit groups -- is far outweighed by the almost $100,000 in increased costs for police and fire services on the holiday. And despite a new $1,000 fine for using illegal fireworks or misusing legal ones, they expect a hot time in Garden Grove on Independence Day.

"There are better ways to celebrate the holiday" than setting off fireworks, says Garden Grove Fire Marshal Dave Barlag. But he noted that while the city fire and police chiefs have gone on record opposing all fireworks sales and use, the City Council has decided otherwise.

And why? The answer is pure politics.

Never mind that almost any honest local pol will admit that fireworks are generally a pain in the neck. For example, Garden Grove councilman and former mayor Bruce Broadwater agrees that fireworks can be annoying ("It drives the dogs nuts," he says), that they bring in crowds of fireworks-frenzied outsiders ("That's a legitimate complaint," he says), and that fireworks block parties can get out of hand ("Sometimes it sounds like Vietnam out there," he says – again the fireworks-war analogy.)

But Broadwater also notes that dozens of school booster groups and other non-profit, youth-oriented organizations derive much of their annual income from Fourth of July fireworks sales. Collectively the groups raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the kids -- and no politician with the IQ of an egg timer wants hordes of moms and dads of high school band members and cheerleaders chewing on his ear because he voted to shut down their chief fundraising source.

"It's a tough issue for a politician," says Broadwater – adding that he doubts the City Council will change its mind about fireworks anytime soon.

And frankly, it's tough issue for a columnist, too.

On one hand, it's clear that even so-called "safe and sane" fireworks can be annoying and dangerous in the wrong hands, particularly in high fire-danger areas. I can understand why some people want to ban them completely.

But I can also understand why other people see creeping nanny-state-ism in further restricting the use of fireworks by responsible people as well as the irresponsible ones. To them it's sort of like banning Fourth of July beer and hotdogs because some idiots will get drunk and drive.

So I'll weasel out of this one by saying that I hope the good people of Garden Grove will settle this issue in a democratic manner – which, when you think about it, is what Independence Day is really all about.

I'll be on vacation next week, attending a reunion in Las Vegas with some of my fine young Marine friends from Iraq and then taking a few days to physically recover from the experience. God willing, I'll return to this space on July 8.

In the meantime, here's wishing you and yours a happy and safe Independence Day.

Especially if you live in Garden Grove.

Contact the writer: 714 -796 -7953 or GLDillow@aol.com





Like poppies in Afganistan..its all about fundraising

So LAAG asks: How are Fireworks different than growing poppy Heroin in Afghanistan? Both are very profitable. Both are very favored by "fundraising groups", like Al Qaeda over there and others over on this side of the world. You ask the people in Afghanistan about growing poppies and they say "hey we have to eat..its not about illegal drug use..thats someone else's problem". Same Here. People say we need fireworks sales or our club will suffer. The fact they cause fires, attract illegal fireworks and cost cities more than the funds raised (etc.) is someone elses problem. Think about it.

Quotes from the Tri Valley Herald (6/28/07)
http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/localnews/ci_6249505

"Selling fireworks was probably the most successful (fundraising effort) we've ever had," said Jim McDonough, a volunteer with the Manteca chapter of the Knights of Columbus, who added he planned to man their booth on North Main Street.

"Our biggest problem is the use of illegal fireworks and the ability to 'hide' them while displaying safe and sane fireworks," Manteca fire Chief George Quaresma said. [Amen to that]

Leading up to the Fourth of July the past two years, four fires have been broken out in Manteca from the misuse of 'safe and sane' fireworks, mostly due to their proximity to fuel sources, such as dry grass or combustibles in garages, said Randy Sutton, a Manteca fire marshal.

"It allowed us to earn a lot of money that we gave money to other local charities that we couldn't have otherwise," he said.

Councilman Vince Hernandez brought the concept forward in 2004 as a way for nonprofits to make money while not having to compete with other organizations.

"The nonprofits in the community needed an avenue that could garner a quick turnaround and not have so much competition," he said, adding he noticed there was a plethora of dinner and telethon fundraisers in the community.





June 7, 2007

fireworks are too inherently dangerous to be used by consumers

Fireworks: We are sticking to our position

National Fire Protection Association Journal®, July/August 2006

Every year NFPA warns the public about the dangers of consumer fireworks as the Fourth of July approaches. Our position has been unequivocal on fireworks since 1910. We believe that fireworks are too dangerous to be used by consumers. We believe that the proper way to enjoy fireworks displays and celebrate our nation’s birthday is to attend public fireworks displays where only trained personnel will be involved in their use.

The large number of injuries, deaths, and fires caused by consumer use of fireworks around the Fourth of July year in and year out proves the wisdom of our long held position. The most recent report issued by the NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division shows how serious a problem this is.

In 2004, 9,600 fireworks-related injuries were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms. The trend in fireworks-related injuries has been mostly up since 1996.

In 2003, an estimated 2,300 structure or vehicle fires were started by fireworks. These fires resulted in five deaths, 60 injuries, and $58 million dollars in property damage.

Between 1998 and 2002, eight people per year were killed in fires started by fireworks and six people per year were killed directly by fireworks. As in most years, the majority of those injured by fireworks in 2004 were under age 20. The highest injury rates were for children aged five to nine.

In 2004, 85 percent of emergency room fireworks injuries involved fireworks that Federal regulations permit consumers to use.

Even though the use of fireworks by consumers has been identified by a wide range of safety and public health groups that include NFPA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Burn Association as a major public health concern, the problem is getting worse. In fact, now only five states ban the use of fireworks by individuals.

In response to requests from fire officials, NFPA has developed a new chapter of NFPA’s pyrotechnics code, NFPA 1124, Code for the Manufacture, Transportation, Storage, and Retail Sale of Fireworks and Pyrotechnic Articles , which provides minimum requirements for retail facilities that sell consumer fireworks. Our development of these requirements reflects the fact that in most parts of the country, retail sales are allowed but in no way shows a weakening resolve on the issue of whether they should be allowed. We believe strongly that fireworks are too inherently dangerous to be used by consumers and that retail sales of fireworks should be banned everywhere.

From time to time, when NFPA and other groups have warned the public about the dangers of fireworks before the Fourth of July, we have been accused of being “unpatriotic.” There is nothing patriotic about the deaths and serious injuries caused by fireworks every year. Anybody who has talked to a person seriously injured by fireworks at a Fourth of July celebration or listened to the physicians who have treated them, knows that there are far better ways for people to show their love of this country.

That is why we are sticking to our position and urge people to attend public displays of fireworks organized by professionals and not use them themselves. That is the only way we can prevent these needless deaths, injuries, and fires.


Fireworks Facts:

* In 2003, an estimated 2,300 reported structure or vehicle fires were started by fireworks. These fires resulted in 5 civilian deaths, 60 civilian injuries, and $29 million in direct property damage.*
* In addition, 100 people were killed in a Rhode Island night club fire ignited by the indoor used of pyrotechnics in a small, crowded room with wall linings that promoted rapid flame spread. The facility had no sprinkler protection.
* In 2004, 9,600 people were treated at hospital emergency rooms for fireworks-related injuries. Burns were the leading type of fireworks injury (62%). Contusions and lacerations were second (20%), and were equal in share to burns when the injury was to any part of the head or face, including the eye. Hands or fingers were the part of the body injured in 33% of the incidents. In 21% of the cases, the eye was involved; other parts of the face or head accounted for 21% of the injuries.
* Children aged 5-9 face the highest risk of fireworks injuries. In 2004, 55% of people injured by fireworks were under the age of 20, with 40% of the injuries incurred by those under age 15. The highest injury rate relative to population was for ages 5 to 9, with 2.2 times the risk for the entire population.
* Males accounted for three-fourths (75%) of fireworks injuries.
* From 1998 to 2002, eight people per year, on average, were killed in fires started by fireworks. Six people per year, on average, were killed directly by fireworks.
* In 2003, fires started by fireworks caused $58 million in direct property damage to structures.
* Based on the amount of time and quantities in use, fireworks pose a higher risk of fire death than any other consumer product. Although cigarettes are the leading cause of fire death, the risk that someone will die from fire when fireworks are being used is three times the corresponding risk when cigarettes are burning.
* On Independence Day in a typical year, fireworks cause more reported outdoor fires in the United States than all other causes of outdoor fire combined.

* Five states ban the use of fireworks by consumers (DE, MA, NJ, NY, and RI). The other 45 states and the District of Columbia permit some or all consumer fireworks.

Source: National Fire Protection Association

April 2, 2007

LACFD report proves LAAG was right on fireworks

LAAG just located the "2005 Fireworks Report" prepared by the LA County Fire Dept. for all county ares they patrol and all cities in the county that contract with them for fire protection. Fortunately the County provided all the raw data on the fires caused by Fireworks, both "illegal", "safe and sane" and fires caused by both or an unknown source believed to be some type of pyrotechnic device, legal or illegal.

Take a look at the chart below. Pay particular attention to the top row as compared to the middle row. What this shows is that County wide is that there are more than twice the incidents involving ALL types of fireworks (both "illegal" and "safe & sane") in the cities that allow safe and sane versus the cities that outlaw all firework use. Now what is even more interesting is that if you look at only incidents involving "illegal" fireworks (those banned statewide) (column 6) there is still almost twice the number of incidents in cities that allow safe and sane fireworks as those that don't.

Click on chart to enlarge it.



So LAAG appears to have been correct in its conclusion (during the Nov 2006 election) that cities that allow safe and sane fireworks are magnets not only for "illegal" fireworks but an increased number of incidents involving only "illegal" fireworks. This data is borne out also by the incidents in the County of LA areas, all of which ban safe and sane fireworks.

Also remember that all this data and the types of fireworks that caused the fires or injuries was all prepared by the LA County Fire Dept. Not LAAG or the fireworks companies.

Another bit of information from the report. There was close to 200,000 property damage (not including brush fires or LACFD costs) from fireworks alone in 2005. Also there were 12 injuries. Again the fire figure is likely fairly accurate (as its hard to hide a fire) but the injury county is probably low especially in cases of adult injuries and not wanting to report and injury from use of an illegal firework.

If you would like to see a full copy of the report please contact us at the email address on the right side of this page.

March 4, 2007

One Year anniversary of the Dunrobin explosion

Well hard to believe but March 5, 2007 will be the one year anniversary of the Miller house explosion on Dunrobin Ave in Lakewood CA. What has changed? Nothing really. We had a "fireworks" referendum with one fireworks company spending $40,000 to combat the anti-fireworks money people (which were almost 40% of the vote). We have the same city council today as we did March 5, 2006, which ironically will likely stay the same on the Mach 6, 2007 election the day after the one year anniversary.

The only fallout for the utter lack of response to the pre-explosion problems from Miller by the Sheriff's department was for them to be rewarded with a new $20 million dollar station "makeover" (more perks for Deputies) and more overtime pay (likely $100,000) every July 4th to subsidize the cost of increased police presence. Just like at the Federal and State level, everyone shirks responsibility, no one is blamed or held accountable (other than lip service) and things go on as usual. Well LAAG is still working on the fireworks issue along with other cities fighting them. We sort of feel like the anti-smoking people 30 years ago. Few people listened back then but look where they are today.

Also, rather ironically, the Miller house on Dunrobin which was virtually destroyed in the March 5, 2006 blast just went up for sale today (March 4, 2007) by the new owner who rebuilt and remodeled the house. It looks great after spending about 300,000 on it. All we can hope is the house is sold to someone who does not use fireworks. Surely the nearby neighbors who lived through that hell on March 5, 2006 hope so as well.

As for Brian Miller he is looking forward to getting out of State prison on or before October 2008, just in time to celebrate the 4th of July in 2009.



January 26, 2007

Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Fireworks: unsafe, insane

Whittier Daily News, CA - 1/25/06
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinions/ci_5087604

FIREWORKS is an explosive issue right now in Whittier.

However it is also a no-win issue.

And, it can be a politically, good ol' boy type of issue.

It is kind of like the question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Well, you get the idea.

Even as this editorial is written, we find ourselves occasionally stopping and wondering if those we have chosen to criticize actually may make more sense than we think.

We fight off that moment of ambiguity and proceed straight ahead.

So where is straight ahead?

We find ourselves standing unequivocally in favor of safety for all living things and protection of property.

We believe that to vote in favor of lifting Whittier's 20-year fireworks ban is to approve of a certain amount of unnecessary risk to local life and property. And this is to say nothing about the terror that fireworks strike into the hearts and psyches of our beloved house pets and the flora and fauna in the Whittier Hills we claim to hold so dear.

We can't have it both ways, folks.

Tuesday, we watched oral communications at the Whittier City Council meeting on television and saw a significant parade of residents go to the podium to speak against legalizing "safe and sane" fireworks. One opponent brought a petition against fireworks signed by 17 people. Only one man, employed by a fireworks company, spoke in favor of lifting the ban.

Mayor Cathy Warner and council members Bob Henderson, Greg Nordbak and Joe Vinatieri voted to lift the ban and allow the sale of fireworks from

9 a.m. to 10 p.m. from June 30 through July 4, and allow the use of the fireworks only on July 4.

Only Councilman Owen Newcomer opposed the motion, citing essentially the same reasons that we do.

Proponents of bringing back local sales and use of fireworks cite patriotic tradition and righteous celebration of the birth of the nation as well as nostalgic recollections of their own family fireworks traditions as reasons to lift the ban.

They also see a financial benefit to the local non-profit organizations that will be able to obtain permits to operate 10 fireworks sales booths as well as fees brought into the city to pay for increased law enforcement to locate violators who use "unsafe and insane" (read: illegal) fireworks.

As far as we are concerned, that fundraising "benefit" is no longer worth the risk to people and property.

We would much prefer for the city to bring back a city-sponsored, city controlled July 4th fireworks event in a park or on a school campus.

The bottom line, all-important point to be made is this: Whether Whittier continues with a fireworks ban or not this county will "explode" with illegal fireworks before, after and during July 4th until more violators are caught and receive stiff penalties.

Until we get serious about controlling the illegal fireworks traffickers and users in this county and in all of our cities, lives and property will continue to be lost to this childish folly.

As far as we are concerned, the blatant, uncontrolled, noise and extreme hazards created around July 4th make no more sense than a riot.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Editorial: Creating more risks
Article Launched: 01/30/2007 07:10:22 PM PST
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_5119804

"Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is already made up" is an old adage that we have all heard many times.

At the Jan. 23 Whittier City Council meeting, this attitude was in evidence on at least one matter. The proposal to lift the ban on fireworks in the city and allow legal sale and discharge of so-called "safe and sane" fireworks was passed without meaningful discussion.

A majority of the council members seemed unconcerned about the physical jeopardy to both persons and property that this action might cause. Whittier needs concerned care, not opportunities for carelessness to wreak harm upon its citizens and their property.

The rather flimsy and shallow reason offered for this action was that "we need a way to express our patriotism," as if mimicking the sounds and sights of war is an intelligent way to show our love for the democratic institutions that insure our cherished freedom and independence.

We all know that the practice of war is a manifestation of man's failures and that killing and destruction is sure to lead us to oblivion. Some of us counseled against starting up a war in Iraq four years ago, but what good did it do?

As reports of injuries from "legal" fireworks come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do? When the first reports of property damage come in, some can say, "I told you so." But what good would that do?

At this same council meeting, the county fire chief recommended that his new permitting ordinance not be passed. But what good did that do?

Some suggested that a lifetime of

professional experience and education dictated that placing our lives and our property at needless risk is unwise. But what good did that do? There are enough risks in our everyday world. We do not need to create any more for the sake of a few cheap thrills.

Robert J. Cantrell

Whittier