Don't get in the water during a forest fire?

[Superdude]

I'm reading a book called The Science of Superheroes, by Lois Gresh and Robert Weinberg. In the book, they examine the laws of physics to see whther certain superheroes could theoretically be plausible.

However, in a section called "The Right Stuff," they talk about stories where the science was accurate. And one of these piqued my curiosity.

In [i]"Vacation Time," published in Vacation Parade #1, July 1950, Donald Duck and his three nephews go on a camping trip to the mountains. Donalds and the boys are good campers and make a safe fire inside a ring of rocks. Not so careful is a tough, inconsiderate camper who smokes cigarette and doesn't know how to make a safe fire. Needless to say, the tough guy's fire starts a forest fire. Donald and his three nephews are trapped in the wilds by the huge blaze. One of the nephews suggests jumping in the river but is told by the others that we would be boiled alive. Donald instead has the boys take their canteens and shovels, and he searches for a clearing.

In the clearing, Donald has the boys dig trenches deep enough to lie in. The ducks wet their coats with cateen water then lie down in the trenches with the wet jackets over their heads and their shovel blades keeping their wet jackets up to give them air to breathe. Then Donald covers hiw nephews with dirt, and goes through the same procedure for himself. The forest fire roars over the ducks but they remain safe. In the end, the tough guy is caught by the forest rangers for starting the fire and Donald and his nephews enjoy their vacation, having been saved by good science.

Bolding mine.

I'll concede that jumping into a river never really seems like a good idea, but why would someone be boiled alive standing in a river during a forest fire?

[danceswithcats]

Getting in the water, as in a river or pond would surely prevent injury during a forest fire, excepting impact from a falling tree, or contact burns from brands. Despite the intense energy of a forest fire, there aren't enough concentrated BTUs to boil a large body of water and harm those within.

Digging a ditch and climbing within, topping oneself with a wetted cloth coverlet is a guarantee for steam burns.

Manufacturers of firefighting gear strive to keep the envelope physically lightweight, offer a thermal barrier from the heat of structural suppression, and also remove moisture from the interface.

Forestry firefighters carry a reflective personal shelter, deployed when escape is not possible from an overruning fire front. Reflectivity, and the air you trap within are the key aspects of your survival, not cooling.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by danceswithcats

Despite the intense energy of a forest fire, there aren't enough concentrated BTUs to boil a large body of water and harm those within.

This was my thought, as well. Especially since a river's generally running, as opposed to a lake or pond. Seems that a running body of water would be even harder to boil than a stationary one.

[Mangetout]

I thought this thread was going to be about this

[Malodorous]

You'd have to keep part of your body out of the water to breathe, perhaps the water clinging on that part of you body would boil off??

Meh, thats stupid on so many levels, but its the only thing I can come up with that sounds even slightly plausible. Now if Donald had said they might sufficate in the river due to smoke inhilaiton, I would've bought that.

[Backwater Under_Duck]

As far as digging trenches to lie in to let the fire pass over you, that was a technique practiced by fire fighters before the modern, high-tech fire-fighting gear came into use. As far as jumping into water, I have seen a documentary of one of the recent California (or Colorado) fires in which a fireman trying to save a homeowner jumped into a swimming pool as the fire overtook the property. They had to watch for falling debris and could only stick their heads out of the water for brief gasps of air to avoid being burned. But they survived.

[Boyo Jim]

I could concieve of being boiled in a VERY small stagnant pond, but almost nothing else, for several reasons.

1. A river flows. There is a constant volume of fresh water to heat as each moment passes.

2. 90+ % of the fire heat is travels up, so there is an influx of cooler air to the base of the fire. Which is also where the water is, and therefor least vulnerable to being heated.

3. Air is an inefficient method of heat transfer,, and would be about the only method to transfer the heat but for the odd flaming logs that topple in the water.

If their were earthquakes and flowing lava in the neighborhood I'd be a lot more worried about boiling in a pond.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I know the authors of that book and all I can say is that what they don't know about science, well, is about equivalent to what first time posters in GQ don't know about science.

[1010011010]

Dry clothes aren't terribly good thermal conductors, so they can get quite hot without making the wearer terribly uncomfortable (unless they move in such a way to press the heated cloth against them- you've probably experienced this is you've ever warmed yourself in front of a fire for a little too long) or causing injury.

However, if you wet the clothes down, two things happen, the hot clothes heat up the water, and wet clothes tend to stick to the body. For this reason, it's generally a bad idea to spray someone down (to try cool them off) if they're not already wet... it may cause 2nd degree burns when someone might have otherwise been uninjured.

However, if you've got the time to dig four trenches and bury yourself in dirt... I don't think youre in a situation where the above concern would have been a problem if you'd just jumped in the creek when you had the chance.

[NurseCarmen]

Here is a snippet on the great Hinkley Minnesota fire where 500+ people died, with a claim of someone either suffocating or getting boiled alive in a well. I think it's hooey. This site discusses people saving themselves in bogs and stagnant water filled gravel pits. I think the people in the wells succombed to the super heated gasses.

[CookingWithGas]

Hmmm. Never thought of Donald Duck as a superhero.

[tangent]Does the book explain that the laws of physics would not permit Superman to fly?[/tangent]

[Revtim]

Mmmmmm, duck soup.....

[Ringo]

While not a forest fire, an article on the firebombing of Tokyo includes the following:

The majority of the 100,000 who perished died from carbon monoxide poisoning and the sudden lack of oxygen, but others died horrible deaths within the firestorm, such as those who attempted to find protection in the Sumida River and were boiled alive...(italics added)

I've read similar accounts several times elsewhere.

[TheLoadedDog]

I don't think a forest fire can really be easily equated to a firestorm in a city.

A city firestorm as a result of carpet bombing will have the fire starting in dozens of different places. These fires accrete into one huge firestorm which draws in oxygen from all directions, burns it, and sends it upwards in flame. People on the ground suffocate and their lungs burn. This stage lasts sufficiently long for it to be lethal. And it more or less stays in the same area.

A forest fire, on the other hand, is a different beast started in different ways, burning different fuel, and behaving differently as well. I can only go off the Australian bushfire experience here, so vegetation differences may not make the US forest fire identical, but I'd wager it'd be pretty close. During the acute "firestorm" stage of a forest fire, things would be pretty similar to those on the ground as they were to the citizens of Tokyo or Dresden. But with one major difference: one of the very aspects of forest fires which can make them deadly to the unprepared is the same one which can help those with a bit of common sense survive - speed. That is, the firestorm arrives quickly, but it also passes relatively quickly. Sure the fires can burn for hours or days afterwards, and the area would still be hot, smoky, uncomfortable and dangerous, but it's not a firestorm. They tend to only be at their worst for a matter of minutes. These fire fronts can travel at freeway speeds. They burn ferociously, but they simply cannot maintain that level of ferocity for long.

If you are in the open, the biggest killer is not flame (you can usually find somewhere down low to escape that), but radiant heat. The radiant heat will bake you alive before the flames even get to you. The only way to protect yourself from it is to place shielding objects between you and it ( even relatively flammable ones like wood if nothing else is available). NOT WET CLOTHING! A motor car is ideal (believe it or not). Get in, seal it, and lie low. And for the reasons others have mentioned here, I think a river would be very good too. Millions of gallons of flowing cold water. The firestorm will be gone before the water gets even noticeably warm.

[danceswithcats]

This link from the National Interagency Fire Center refers to using a vehicle as a shelter if your personal shelter cannot be deployed in time. The volume of combustible products in a vehicle puts me off that route.

I'd be intrigued to read any cites about the trench method of survival. A more effective tactic is that which FF Dodge used as explained by Norman Maclean in his book Young Men and Fire. Dodge saw that the blowup would overrun their position shortly, so he lit his own fire. By creating a burn zone devoid of fuel, a safe haven of sorts was created. He lay down in the ashes and survived, as did those who stayed with him. The crew members who tried to outrun it perished on that rocky Montana hillside.

[Scarface Z]

[quote=Ringo]While not a forest fire, an article on the firebombing of Tokyo includes the following:

the bombs probably used something like napalm something similiar to gasoline (a flammable substance). i was just thinking of movies where i've seen a flammable liquid burning on top of the water.

forest fire: couldn't one jump into the river and let it carry you downstream away from the fire? (don't say drowning, they're ducks, they can float) also, why can't donald fly away? he's a duck. i'll admit falling, burning trees does make the river seem dangerous, but don't you face that same danger in a hole in the ground.

also, i know i've heard stories of fires restarting simply from the heat in the ground.

maybe if dug deep enough to get to where the soil is it's constant 52 degrees

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by CookingWithGas

Hmmm. Never thought of Donald Duck as a superhero.

[tangent]Does the book explain that the laws of physics would not permit Superman to fly?[/tangent]

It details how his abilities of flight, his strength due to higher gravity on Krypton, the likelihood of finding other inhabited planets, et al are pretty much impossible. Also, why Green Lantern couldn't POSSIBLY have a weakness to yellow things.

[Muffin]

Originally Posted by Scarface Z

. . . . also, i know i've heard stories of fires restarting simply from the heat in the ground. . . .

Not ground heat, but rather root fires. Even after the branches and trunks are put out, the roots may still be burning. Since roots are often intertwined between trees, fires can spread from tree to tree via roots.

[Malodorous]

Originally Posted by danceswithcats

A more effective tactic is that which FF Dodge used as explained by Norman Maclean in his book Young Men and Fire. Dodge saw that the blowup would overrun their position shortly, so he lit his own fire. By creating a burn zone devoid of fuel, a safe haven of sorts was created

I almost cited the song written about this in my first post in this thread, but I wasn't sure it was based on real events so I declined. Interesting to know it was a true story.

[Spavined Gelding]

I’m not quite sure how to react to someone taking the plot line from a fifty year old plus comic book as a wilderness survival guide. Surely we can agree that as between, for instance, an Army field manual on wilderness survival, The Boy Scout Handbook and a Donald Duck comic book, the last authority to give credence is probably a product of the Walt Disney Company. Still more disturbing, I distinctly remember that comic book – Ten Cents, 52 pages.

[Carnac the Magnificent!]

Originally Posted by TheLoadedDog

A motor car is ideal (believe it or not). Get in, seal it, and lie low.

I've witnessed an automobile catch fire and explode. Nothing like in the movies, mind you, but the flaming interior didn't look particularly inviting. I've also passed to within 40 feet of another flaming automobile, and the radiant heat was surprisingly intense, even through my vehicle's windows were closed and I was moving, not stationary.

As a forest fire approached, I'd be concerned about the 15 gallons of gasoline located five feet from me.

[danceswithcats]

Curious Malodorous-what song was that?

BTW, if you'd like to know more, in addition to Maclean's book (a practical 'must read' for everyone in forestry fire suppression), Google for "Mann Gulch" and you'll see a number of links to information about that terrible day.

[DrDeth]

Are we really trying to get good advice from a Donald Duck comic book?!?

[Superdude]

I'm just merely asking about the statement that the science was accurate. Not asking Donald Duck to teach me hostage negotiation.

[Troy McClure SF]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Are we really trying to get good advice from a Donald Duck comic book?!?

Hey, about half of what I know now is from Carl Barks' duck comics. I remember the comic in the OP quite well, actually.

[Nekosoft]

If I may speak for Malodorous, the song that occurs to me is James Keelaghan's "Cold Missouri Waters" (recently covered by Cry Cry Cry).