¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

Bonfires will blaze all over Britain this week as we commemorate Guy
Fawkes’ failed attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. As
usual, the night skies will be aglow with fireworks of all shapes and colours,
and the streets will echo with the customary bangs and whizzes. But this
probably looks rather tame compared with the spectacular colour and excitement
of a Latin American or Spanish fiesta, where throwing fireworks around in
the street is the norm. The price for this entertainment may be too high,
however, and this year saw the first moves towards a worldwide safety standard
for fireworks. Will it prevent injuries without spoiling the fun?

Even in Britain, where safety standards are tougher than elsewhere,
the problem has not gone away. According to official statistics, 723 people
were injured last year in accidents with fireworks, 247 of them eye injuries:
in total 109 people had to miss work or school to recover, and 26 spent
more than one night in hospital. One-third of the injuries were sustained
by children under 13.

But things have been improving. Last year’s toll was down by 237 compared
with 1987, and by 1303 compared with 1969. The best year on record was 1980,
when only 555 injuries were reported in Britain. ‘In the 1960s, there were
roughly 3000 firework accidents each November, with a fair percentage, perhaps
25 per cent, from bangers, and 20 or so per cent from flying fireworks,’
explained Ron Rapley, research director at Standard Fireworks, Britain’s
biggest manufacturer of fireworks, based in Huddersfield. This led to voluntary
agreements to restrict dangerous fireworks, to limit the weight of explosive
allowed in individual fireworks and to educate the public on how to handle
them. According to Rapley, accidents have now stabilised at 600 to 800 a
year. By comparison, about 5000 people are killed on the roads or in accidents
at home, 650 at work and 400 in sports and leisure activities each year.
‘Only Great Britain publishes comprehensive injury figures relating to fireworks,’
Rapley says. The assumption is that in other countries throwing fireworks
around and setting off those which are faulty and have erratic flight contributes
significantly to injuries.

Britain made a big step forward with the introduction of a British Standard,
BS7114, to which all fireworks sold or manufactured in the country must
conform . This standard, completed in 1988 and adopted in law a year later,
means that manufacturers work to higher standards and fewer faulty fireworks
reach the consumer. Manufacturers must also provide consumers with strict
instructions on how to use fireworks safely. The standard helped the Explosives
Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), based in Bootle on
Merseyside, to outlaw dangerous imports from China that had led to a rise
in the numbers of casualties during the early 1980s. ‘Fireworks, or firecrackers,
traditionally came from China. The Chinese still make a lot of fireworks,
the problem is that the quality is variable,’ said Roland Wharton, head
of the commercial explosives section of the HSE’s Explosion and Flame Laboratory
in Buxton, Derbyshire. ‘The British Standard provides us with a means of
identifying quality fireworks.’ Inspectors at the HSE routinely examine
imported batches and do spot checks where the fireworks are on sale to see
how closely manufacturers are sticking to the standard. Researchers at the
HSE’s Buxton Laboratory developed all the performance tests for BS7114.
Wharton says some Chinese manufacturers have now improved quality control
so that faulty batches are picked up before export.

Some manufacturers think the standard still has serious shortcomings.
Ron Lancaster of Kimbolton Fireworks near Hunt-ingdon says it was drafted
with ‘indecent haste’ and is too stringent. He says that in his company,
which mainly makes display fireworks, people spend around a third of their
time conducting overburdensome tests to comply with regulations and standards.
He fears this will cause problems further down the line towards an international
standard. Moreover, some specifications make no allowance for how the fireworks
are actually used. Fuse burn times, for example, may vary according to wind
conditions or humidity. Also, manufacturers may recategorise some garden
fireworks into other, higher hazard categories to avoid them being banned,
so the safe distances that people are meant to observe become inappropriate.

Nevertheless, when the European Commission began work on a European
Standard in 1989, it decided to use BS7114 as the base document. In May
this year in Montreal, Canada, representatives of 12 nations got together
for the first time to consider how to frame a global standard for fireworks.
But countries disgree on what the next step should be. Broadly speaking,
the northern European countries – Germany, Britain, the Netherlands and
Norway – and the US favour completion of a European standard first. Latin
American countries, including Spain, Mexico and Argentina, joined China,
Canada, France and Russia in wanting to move to an international one worked
out by the International Standards Organisation (ISO). While a European
standard would be mandatory, an ISO standard is not.

This split to some extent reflects cultural differences between the
two groups. ‘The overall problem is the different use of fireworks on a
national basis, and different perceptions of hazard,’ says Rapley. ‘The
law (in Britain), for example, forbids people from lighting fireworks in
the street. In other countries, especially the Mediterranean and Latin American
countries, they don’t have Guy Fawkes’ night, back-garden displays or even
large displays, they have fiestas in the street.’ In Spain, for example,
people happily throw fireworks around, and manufacturers are permitted to
use flash powder in bangers and louder, more powerful products. Alberto
Navarro, the director of Sinaptica, a Spanish display fireworks company,
says that last year there were 300 injuires and no deaths from fireworks
during the country’s fiestas, but that ‘many, many accidents are not reported’.
He favours a move straight to an international standard. ‘It will simplify
everything,’ he says. The same sort of North/South split exists in the Americas,
with noisy festivals and fiestas favoured in the South and quieter, more
conservative displays in the US and Canada.

These frictions have surfaced already in the groups preparing the European
standard. Rapley heads the most important of three sub-groups engaged in
the exercise, which considers requirements and testing methods (the other
two are concerned with classification and terminology and labelling). He
fears that strict British voluntary and mandatory standards that have been
adopted over the past 30 years could be seriously undermined by the compromises
necessary to achieve European unity. ‘Industry in Britain has already voluntarily
banned flyabouts (fireworks that whirl about erratically) and jumping jacks,
whereas these are quite common on the Continent,’ he says. ‘Therefore, we
want these issues sorted out.’

Rapley’s biggest fear is that larger bangers will come back. ‘We could
be outvoted on things like jumping crackers or bigger bangers. And with
no barrier to trade, how could you stop it?’ he asks. ‘In the UK industry,
we don’t want it because you might get ‘cowboys’ importing bangers of dubious
origin with larger report charges.’ Rapley’s group – which is working out
the testing regimes and the performance requirements for all European fireworks
– has also hit an impasse relating to noise restrictions. While the British
standard sets no noise limits, there is a European directive restricting
exposure to noise at work. This limits cumulative noise – a form of ‘dosage’
throughout a working day – and also states that noise exposures should not
exceed 140 decibels. ‘Anything above this can cause damage to the hearing
system,’ says Wharton of the HSE. ‘We don’t really know how many fireworks
exceed this at distances at which the public could be standing – we would
have to do some scientific measurements.’

Another tricky area is that of deciding on safe distances from fireworks.
‘We wish to have distance written on the label at which a spectator can
stand safely,’ says Norbert Pfeil, head of the laboratory of pyrotechnics
at the Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing in Berlin. Pfeil
favours the use of pictograms on labels to get round language difficulties,
but even this will have limited effect. ‘This information is useful in gardens,
but not on streets,’ he says. ‘It’s totally impractical for street parties
and fiestas, where people are on the move and cannot retreat to given distances.’

All these problems were magnified in Montreal when countries started
to consider a global standard. ‘No one was against international fireworks
harmonisation,’ says Ron Vandebeek, the manager of the Canadian Explosives
Research Laboratory in Ontario and the chairman of the Montreal meeting.
‘What it boiled down to was the process to be followed.’ Vandebeek favours
a move straight to an international standard and, in accordance with resolutions
passed in Montreal, has initiated an approach to the ISO. This is the start
of a process in which the ISO notifies its members of the initiative and
sounds them out on the idea. If five countries back it, the ISO sets up
a committee to develop an international standard.

Vandebeek rejects the notion that this would interfere with or duplicate
the European effort. ‘The most desirable way ahead would be to use documents
coming out of the European process and adapt them for the ISO process,’
he says. ‘It would not be re-inventing the wheel, or wasting the time of
the European countries.’ He fears things could drag on if the other route
– completion of the European standard before moving on to an international
one – is pursued. ‘The earliest for something out of Europe would be 1996.
Then, if other countries wanted major revisions, there would be much resistance
from the EC, and the earliest date for an international standard could be
2003, or thereabouts.’ Pfeil, who heads the European standards working group
on labelling of fireworks, disagrees. He says the North/South disagreements
in Europe reflect those elsewhere in the world, so any difficulties resulting
from cultural differences in the use of fireworks will be ironed out in
the European standard before it reaches a world stage. ‘We in Europe have
a large difference in safety perceptions between North and South. Therefore,
the North/South compromise would suit the rest of the world,’ he says.

AROUND THE WORLD VIA EUROPE

John Conkling of the American Pyrotechnics Assocation in Chestertown,
Maryland, and the US’s chief delegate in Montreal, favours the development
of a world standard by the European route. He is concerned about slowing
down the European process. Conkling ultimately favours ‘a consensus that
leads to standards for all fireworks, then individual countries could decide
which ones to permit.’ He points out that within the framework of federal
regulations and standards that have been in place in the US for 16 years,
individual states have some discretion over what to allow. ‘Things like
standard burn times for fuses and labelling are mandatory. Also, we don’t
permit more than 50 milligrams of powder in a banger, although this can
be flash powder which is banned in some European countries.’ Within this,
he said, individual states can be more, but not less, restrictive. Some
states ban rockets, for example. Twelve states ban all consumer fireworks,
and only allow displays. These include many states in New England, such
as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

QUALITY CONTROL

In the US as a whole, says Conkling, injuries have stabilised at around
10 000 per year, although the volume of fireworks has doubled in the past
decade, suggesting that the regulations have raised safety standards. The
US has a very fragmented firework manufacturing industry, and 90 per cent
of the $75-million worth of fireworks burnt in the US are imported, many
from China. Conk-ling’s biggest fear, shared by many major importers, is
over fireworks from China, because of their variable quality. ‘We have been
working on a programme for the past four years with China to institute better
levels of quality control within their exported products,’ he explained.
‘Some factories really are excellent . . . but for every good factory, there’s
another 50 miles away that could be very, very primitive,’ he said. ‘It’s
giving their product a very bad name in the international community.’ Rapley
agrees Chinese fireworks are of inconsistent quality. ‘Some have outlawed
mixtures, such as sulphur and chlorate,’ he says. ‘The colours are very
good, they’re very pretty and imaginative, but what they don’t have is constant
quality production.’ China favours an international standard, and Mo Jinyu
of China’s import inspection service backed the ISO in Montreal.

There are also the inevitable difficulties of policing production. Apart
from home-made versions, many potentially dangerous fireworks are imported
from countries which produce them as cottage industries. In Mexico where
there are no fireworks standards, some 800 families are involved in making
them. Lisandro Bril, the Argentinian delegate to the Montreal meeting, says
illegal fireworks are a big problem in Argentina: ‘Sixty to 70 per cent
of firecrackers (bangers) in Argentina are smuggled from Brazil, and these
are stronger and cheaper’.

But the most worrying aspect remains the inability of countries to agree
on how to reach common safety standards for the future. Should they go by
the European or the global route? Rapley has no doubts about the difficulties
ahead: ‘The others want an ISO because they can’t meet a European standard,’
he warns. Unless they can find a compromise, fireworks in many countries
will not be as much fun as they look.

* * *

1: Bringing fireworks up to standard

Broadly, BS7114 divides fireworks into four categories. Garden fireworks
dominate category 2, category 3 fireworks are those used in semipublic
displays, such as at scout or cricket clubs. Category 4 includes all the
highly hazardous fireworks used by professionals at large public displays.

The standard requires manufacturers to label fireworks with distances
to which spectators must retreat after lighting them. These range from 1
metre for indoor fireworks and 5 metres for garden fireworks to 25 metres
for category 3 fireworks. It also specifies how long fuses should be allowed
to burn, for example 3 to 13 seconds for garden fireworks. The first figure
is set to allow people who have just lit the firework to retreat safely
to the 5-metre viewing point. The second figure is to prevent a person returning
too soon to a live firework. For category 3 fireworks, the first figure
is 5 seconds to allow people to retreat to the safe viewing distance of
25 metres and the second is 15 seconds.

BS7114 also contains restrictions on the construction and the composition
of fireworks. Bangers for garden displays, for example, can only be loaded
with a charge of so-called black powder, more traditionally known as gunpowder.
This is formed from a mixture of potassium nitrate, charcoal and sulphur
in specified amounts and compositions. It is a ‘low explosive’ and does
not actually detonate. Instead, it causes ‘bangs’ by expanding rapidly and
compressing air in the confined space of the firework casing. Bangers are
involved in more accidents than any other type of firework. Last year, for
example, 146 accidents involved bangers, and 91 of these occurred in the
street. Since the 1960s, fireworks manufacturers in Britain have voluntarily
restricted the amount of gunpowder permitted in a single banger to 1.6 grams.
The industry has also voluntarily banned the use in bangers of a more potent
form of gunpowder called ‘flash powder’. This mixture of potassium perchlorate
and aluminium has a much bigger power output than black powder, and gives
a white flash.

The standard specifies how manufacturers should test batches of fireworks
and types of fireworks to make sure that they function properly, and to
identify faulty consignments. These tests are designed to detect malfunctions
in fuses and casings. Inspectors also examine the contents and performance
of the fireworks, and gauge whether they are stable when exposed to the
heat and vibration that they may encounter during storage and transport.

* * *

2: Elephants in lights

Like good baking recipes, the formulas for making most fireworks have
been handed down for generations (see ‘The dark secret of fireworks’, New
¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 31 October 1985). ‘Composition-wise, not much has changed. Formulations
have been there for hundreds of years,’ says Ron Rapley, research director
at Standard Fireworks in Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

But the search for novelty goes on, and in the US one company has devised
a system for making hundreds of fireworks burst simultaneously in midair
to form a recogisable geometric shape which exists for an instant before
disintegrating. ‘So far, we’ve done hearts, five-pointed stars, butterflies
and yellow bow ties,’ says Cam Starr, the president of Starr Display Fireworks
in Fargo, North Dakota. But his tour de force, unveiled earlier this year,
is an elephant image measuring 100 metres long and 90 metres high.

All Starr’s airborne creations spring out from balls that are around
15 centimetres across. Operators fire the ball into the sky and at a certain
altitude, the ball explodes, sending unexploded stars out in preset directions.
The charges are all individually weighted and directed so that they explode
simultaneously.

Starr is coy about the technology involved. ‘You must have the stars
in exact places in the ball, and work out the burst for each so it propels
the stars to exactly the right place.’ Also, he says, you need a casing
that is uniform in tensile strength. ‘It takes lots of skill and innovation
to do it. It’s very complex to get the burst exactly right . . . We consider
ourselves to be the Swiss watchmakers of the fireworks industry.’

He relies on four ‘indispensable’ people to work out the ballistics.
‘We use no computers at all, or equations,’ he adds. All the company’s research
is conducted on a 10-acre site at least 2 kilometres from civilisation.
The company has a permit to do explosives testing, and his team perfects
the patterns by trial and error. ‘It took several hundred attempts to get
the elephant, and some versions looked more like cows and rhinos,’ said
Starr. Once the precise positions of the charges in the ball have been worked
out, the 50 or so workers in Starr’s factory pack them all by hand.

Starr says his company could produce virtually any shape, provided it
would fit somehow into a circle. ‘We can do anything that’s symmetrical
and does not require inner detail. That’s the limitation in the technology
as we now have it,’ he said. Starr does the elephants in red, white or blue
and has sold some for Republican conventions – the Republican Party’s symbol
is an elephant. ‘But we’ve probably sold more to circuses,’ he adds. Yellow
bow ties were used in displays to welcome home troops from the Gulf War.
The butterflies have blue wings, blue eyes and blue antennae, but the hearts
and stars have sold best.