You are not supposed to use the word 'panic' in the context of human behaviour in fires, yet this episode contains 196 instances of it. Why? because we try to get to the bottom of the thing! Can panic be both a myth and a reality?

Join us as we challenge the age-old narratives of panic in emergencies with our distinguished guest, Professor Daniel Nilsson, from the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. We unravel the misconceptions surrounding human behaviour during fires, spotlighting the harmful effects of outdated myths perpetuated by media and literature. By debunking these myths, we aim to reshape fire safety engineering, focusing on realistic human reactions and informed decision-making.

Our conversation takes you across cultural landscapes, from the Western world to the Soviet Union, questioning national claims of panic susceptibility and the portrayal of panic as a contagious force. Challenging the historical context, we try to figure out what panic is once you apply the scientific method to understand it.

We also try to assess historical events like the Victoria Tower evacuation and the Love Parade tragedy, we underscore how engineering failures, not irrational behaviour, often lead to crowd disasters. Professor Nilsson and I delve into the psychology of decision-making during evacuations, emphasising the power of clear communication to prevent chaos and save lives.

Finally, we reflect on the profound research of Quarantelli, who redefined panic through thousands of disaster case studies, revealing the complexity of human responses in crises. We explore how cultural contexts influence perceived panic behaviour by differentiating between non-rational and irrational actions. We aim to enlighten fire safety professionals and the broader audience on the importance of replacing the myth of panic with empathy and evidence-based strategies, fostering a safer and more understanding approach to emergency responses.

Further reading?
Sure.
Daniel's paper in SFPE Europe magazine - is panic a myth or reality?
Proloux and Sime paper where they challanged the limiting of information (1991)

And if you really got into this, Jonathan Sime's PhD

Also, a ton of material on Human Behaviour and evacuation is waiting for you in the Uncovered Witness project!

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

The Grenfell Tower tragedy has triggered a Public Inquiry (which just published their final report), and concurrently - a review of the UK Building Regulations and Fire Safety. The latter task was given to Dame Judith Hackitt, a former Head of the Health and Safety Executive and a chemical engineer.

In this interview Dame Judith Hackitt lends her voice to a pressing dialogue on fire safety reform following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. She uncovers the systemic flaws that allowed such a disaster to occur and stresses the urgent need for a cultural shift in safety practices, beyond mere regulatory compliance. By dissecting the UK's Building Safety Act, we discuss the prioritization of life safety over property protection, particularly within vulnerable residential zones. This conversation not only addresses disparities between residential and commercial building regulations but urges a reevaluation of how safety standards are applied globally.

The episode further explores the inadequacy of outdated fire safety frameworks in the context of modern architecture. Dame Hackitt provides insights into the necessity of involving competent fire engineers early in the design process and the importance of a holistic approach to fire risk assessment. With a new regulatory regime shifting responsibility onto duty holders, the onus is on architects, constructors, and engineers to prove safety from the onset. We highlight the growing demand for skilled fire safety professionals and the need for collaboration and transparency, setting a performance-based precedent for future safety measures.

As we navigate these necessary changes, the discussion underscores the broader implications for the construction industry, including architects, designers, and product manufacturers. We delve into the challenges of adopting a new regulatory mindset, inspired by global practices and insights from esteemed reviews. Dame Hackett's perspectives advocate for industry-led guidance and innovation, stressing the potential for alliances to drive the evolution of fire safety standards. This transformative dialogue serves as a clarion call for heightened accountability and a collective pursuit of excellence within the construction landscape.

If you would like to learn about the regulatory review, please read the Dame Hackitt's final report.

If you would like a scientific commentary to this review, please refer to this paper by Spinardi and Law.

Some of the changes to the regulatory system were also discussed in the Episode 102 of the Fire Science Show about the changing role of architects in the system.

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.

AI is changing the world. But can artificial intelligence truly revolutionize fire safety engineering? In this episode I took out my crystal ball, and tried to find answers in what aspects of fire engineering we could truly see a revolutionary impact of AI, and where it is more a disturbing gadget with no real application...

Overall, working in the space for many years, and having talked with many luminaries of the use of AI, I would say my expectations are toned down a lot. I am still excited, but I've also learnt that really good AI applications require exceptional knowledge and resources, often at a level not accessible in fire science. While the building blocks are there, we may be short in the data, processing power or knowledge to truly apply it. At the same time, as AI became a buzzword for novelty, a lot of people pursue very simple AI applications with extraordinary claims - something that kind of triggers and annoys me...

In this episode I try to give my opinion about the use of AI in:

• supporting fire modelling
• writing and reporting (engineering and in science)
• data processing
• predicting fire phenomena
• studying fire phenomena
• material properties
• fire testing and legislation

Each of those I've ranked on an arbitrary scale of
1 - b-s.
2 - not too excited
3 - a good use of AI
4 - very exciting use of AI
5 - paradigm shifting use of AI

Which got the highest rank? Listen to the episode to find by yourself :)

In the episode I refer a lot to the previous episodes of the Fire Science Show in which AI technology was discussed. You can listen to those in the AI/ML section of the podcast, find them all here: https://www.firescienceshow.com/category/ai-ml/

Big thanks to the inspirational guests and my close friends that helped me clear my mind on AI, especially to MZ Naser, Jakub Bielawski, Mike Spearpoint, Danny Hopkin, Matt Bonner, Xinyan Huang, Michael Kinsey and Mike Stromgren!

----
The Fire Science Show is produced by the Fire Science Media in collaboration with OFR Consultants. Thank you to the podcast sponsor for their continuous support towards our mission.