Jump to content


UN restrictions on fireworks-are they a step too far?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:36 PM

:( These restrictions on rockets and cakes by UN and possible targeting of other fireworks, are they a step too far? I for one personally feel that it is;

a By restricting sizes of rockets one can buy and putting large ones into 1.3G it will spoil the enjoyment that larger rockets can bring with their bigger better bursts,
b And by reducing bore sizes on cakes/barrages/candles they will lose their excitement value.

The UN likes to upset firework enthusiasts by bringing in unfair measures reducing the enjoyment of fireworks by size etc, and I'll bet pounds to pence that they don't,didn't and won't even consult with (and listen to) the world's firework companies, take note and act on their recommendations and are fast turning into dogooders by saying what we can and cant let off and deciding what's good for us when it comes to firework sizes. These bossyboots airy-fairies are restrictive beaureaucrats! :angry:

Edited by Anthony, 07 December 2005 - 10:44 AM.


#2 Andrew

Andrew

    Rocket Scientist, no really, I am!

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 04:35 PM

It does not restrict the size of firework you can make though!! ;) I do not know of many publically available rockets that have more that 100g of comp in.

#3 Richard H

Richard H

    Pyro Forum Veteran

  • Admin
  • 2,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 08:23 PM

Anthony, as much as we dislike it, test have shown that these items need to be reclassified. You cannot argue with the UN.

#4 The_Djinn

The_Djinn

    Light Up The Sky - KF Pyro Crew

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 518 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 10:41 PM

point to ponder..
did you know that rockets without there sticks are 1.1 classified !
KF Pyro Crew
BPA L1 & L2

#5 Richard H

Richard H

    Pyro Forum Veteran

  • Admin
  • 2,706 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 11:11 PM

The 1.1G classification only applies to stickless maroon rockets, where the principle effect is report by flash composition. Colour star effects are considered 1.3G and 1.4G respectively.

#6 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 10:36 AM

Anthony, as much as we dislike it, test have shown that these items need to be reclassified. You cannot argue with the UN.

Yeah right, and to what standard do the UN benchmark requirements for change in consumer fireworks? Some kind of a ridiculous mickey mouse standard/directive? Our BS7114 (and it's up and coming European replacement standard/directive) is the best judge of firework product safety, cannot be bettered and should be more relied upon as it is THE BEST EVER possible benchmark and set of standards for firework product construction/manufacture/quality control/performance and safety within the fireworks industry than any silly stupid alien set of UN decided/imposed "I say so and you can't be any different, defeat us/better us or ignore us and we'll come down hard on you" rules/regulations/directives and standards for fireworks!!! :angry:

Edited by Anthony, 07 December 2005 - 11:10 AM.


#7 Richard H

Richard H

    Pyro Forum Veteran

  • Admin
  • 2,706 posts

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:09 AM

I think you are confusing consumer firework standards with transport and storage. The UN defines regulations for the transport of all explosives, which are assigned to hazard classification 1. Within this are several divisions and compatibility groups. This includes military explosives, fireworks, party poppers, cracker snaps, everything.

Of interest to fireworks are the following:

Divisions:

1.1 - Mass explosion hazard
1.2 - Projection hazard
1.3 - Fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both
1.4 - Substances and articles which present no significant hazard

The compatibility groups G and S are also of relevance:

G:

Pyrotechnic substance, or article containing a pyrotechnic substance, or article containing both an explosive substance and an illuminating, incendiary, tear- or smoke-producing substance (other than a wateractivated article or one containing white phosphorus, phosphides a pyrophoric substance, a flammable liquid or gel, or hypergolic liquids).

S:

Substance or article so packed or designed that any hazardous effects arising from accidental functioning are confined within the package unless the package has been degraded by fire, in which case all blast or projection effects are limited to the extent that they do not significantly hinder or prohibit fire fighting or other emergency response efforts in the immediate vicinity of the package.

Fireworks for consumers are generally 1.4G and this means if an accident occured during transport or storage of these items in any appreciable quantity then there would be no significant hazard in comparison to an accident involving 1.1G articles.

Well defined and scientific tests have shown that 1.4G is no longer an accurate classification code (a product of the hazard division and compatibillity group) for SOME consumer fireworks, like large rockets. There is little point in pretending these items do not need reclassifying when the cold hard facts say they do.

As I say, these items are not being banned. Assuming you can collect rockets from some of the large retailers with 1.3G stores then there won't be a problem.

#8 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:18 AM

I think you are confusing firework standard safety with transport and storage. The UN defines regulations for the transport of all explosives, which are assigned to hazard classification 1. Within this are several divisions and compatibility groups. This includes military explosives, fireworks, party poppers, cracker snaps, everything.

Of interest to fireworks are the following:

1.1 - Mass explosion hazard
1.2 - Projection hazard
1.3 - Fire hazard and either a minor blast hazard or a minor projection hazard or both
1.4 - Substances and articles which present no significant hazard

The compatibility groups G and S are also of relevance:

G:

Pyrotechnic substance, or article containing a pyrotechnic substance,
or article containing both an explosive substance and an illuminating,
incendiary, tear- or smoke-producing substance (other than a wateractivated
article or one containing white phosphorus, phosphides a
pyrophoric substance, a flammable liquid or gel, or hypergolic
liquids).

S:

Substance or article so packed or designed that any hazardous effects
arising from accidental functioning are confined within the package
unless the package has been degraded by fire, in which case all blast
or projection effects are limited to the extent that they do not
significantly hinder or prohibit fire fighting or other emergency
response efforts in the immediate vicinity of the package.

Fireworks for consumers are generally 1.4G and this means if an accident occured during transport or storage of these items in any appreciable quantity then there would be no significant hazard in comparison to an accident involving 1.1G articles.

Well defined and scientific tests have shown that 1.4G is no longer an accurate classification code (a product of the hazard division and compatibillity group) for SOME consumer fireworks, like large rockets. There is little point in pretending these items do not need reclassifying when the cold hard facts say they do.

As I say, these items are not being banned. Assuming you can collect rockets from some of the large retailers with 1.3G stores then there won't be a problem.

OK all well and good, but Cat3 25m consumer firework display rockets and large bore cakes/candles and barrages generally DO NOT detonate or explode on their own if they are transported, it would need a vehicle fire or explosion for the deliverie(s) of fireworks to become dangerous and a hazard, the UN are over-reacting in a way because this has never ever happened or has been proved to happen. Large Cat3 25m consumer firework display rockets plus large bore cakes/candles and barrages DO NOT detonate OR explode on their own if properly stored either(again would need an explosion or fire to become dangerous and a hazard) and it has never ever happened or has been proved to happen. :)

Edited by Anthony, 07 December 2005 - 01:46 PM.


#9 Richard H

Richard H

    Pyro Forum Veteran

  • Admin
  • 2,706 posts

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:22 AM

Does Enschede mean anything to you? Tests have shown these things do happen. I agree that most cakes do not pose an explosion hazard, but the projection hazard is the problem.

#10 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:24 AM

Does Enchede mean anything to you?

That was industrial fireworks of Cat4 guise NOT consumer fireworks.

#11 Richard H

Richard H

    Pyro Forum Veteran

  • Admin
  • 2,706 posts

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:29 AM

Yes, but it prompted the subsequent tests on consumer fireworks! What is the point of arguing about it. The regulations have changed and that's that.

#12 Spyrotechnics

Spyrotechnics

    Fireworks Lover

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:56 AM

Anthony - you need to make up your mind - on one hand you are banging on about quiter fireworks etc etc and now you are arguing that new classifications will spoil the fun of the large rockets, not sure I ever witnessed a quiet large rocket??

#13 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 01:40 PM

Does Enschede mean anything to you? Tests have shown these things do happen. I agree that most cakes do not pose an explosion hazard, but the projection hazard is the problem.

That was due to unknown illegal and illicit storage in a warehouse close to residential areas and property and no notification/record/no information etc ever given of such storage of those fireworks to local authorities/firebrigade/their version of our HSE etc;that sort of thing wouldn't happen here (and wouldn't be allowed to happen here), what with our strict laws/requirements regarding firework factories and/or firework stores and/or firework magazine storage facilities and strict requirements regarding their distances/proximity to buildings etc. An "Enschede" on that sort of scale would never happen here and i'll tell you why;Cat2 and Cat3 garden/display fireworks aren't really capable of that sort of devastation and don't have the lethally explosive potential forces of Cat4 professional fireworks to do similar destruction on such a large scale anyway as happened over in The Netherlands. :( PS To set the record straight :angry: I wasn't laughing at Enschede at all, just laughing at the UN's ridiculous plans to scale down rockets cakes candles and barrages-that is a joke! get your facts correct and stop looking back in anger all the time as you currently do! :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

Edited by Anthony, 07 December 2005 - 02:06 PM.


#14 Spyrotechnics

Spyrotechnics

    Fireworks Lover

  • General Public Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 664 posts

Posted 07 December 2005 - 01:54 PM

I can't believe that you are actually laughing about what happened in Enschede :o :o :o


You are one sick individual and have no place on this forum as far as I am concrened :angry:

#15 Guest_Anthony_*

Guest_Anthony_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2005 - 02:17 PM

I can't believe that you are actually laughing about what happened in Enschede :o :o :o
You are one sick individual and have no place on this forum as far as I am concrened :angry:

Keep your personal sentiments to yourself, don't cast your nasturtians on what members say it isn't none of your business. :angry:




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users