Night Club Fire in Brazil - 200+ Dead

[Broomstick]

The Kiss night club in Santa Maria, Brazil has joined the list of infamous fatal nightclub fires. These fires invariably combine the hazards of fire (of course) and crowd-crush disasters. Invariably, there is heavy, usually toxic smoke from burning furnishings. Invariably, there are too many people attempting to exit through too few doorways/windows resulting in pile-ups of human bodies.

The most tragic thing about this tragic event? We know how to prevent them and/or reduce the death toll

1) Fire resistant furnishings (including sound proofing)
2) Don't set off pyrotechnics indoors, especially where ceilings are of normal room height.
3) Limit density of crowds
4) Have sufficient exits for crowds
5) Do not block exits (whether via locks or security guards)
6) Mark exits well
7) Utilize automatic fire suppression systems like sprinklers

These strategies aren't news - most of them have been promoted since the Iroquois Theater Fire in Chicago in 1903 which also featured the hazards of fire + crowd panic. These features are required in fire codes all over the world. Yet this sort of thing continues to happen all over the world. It is very sad.

[Spekio]

The most tragic thing about this tragic event?

There is no fiscalization for this sort of things in small towns. Our government is inneficient in that regard big time.

I have a facebook friend who was there. He said that for a while, the security guards were holding people so that they wouldn' t leave without paying. Yeah.

[PeZook]

There's a special bill that regulates how many people are allowed to attend a "mass event" that doesn't meet certain criteria.

People still ignore it all too often, because more people = more money for the club/concert. There's literally a direct conflict of interest here that can only be taken care of with vigilant enforcement.

[Broomstick]

Even if money is an issue, some preventive/mitigating things are pretty damn cheap, like doors that open outward (even without a panic bar), well-marked exits, and, real super basic, don't set off pyrotechnics indoors. Of course, the latter requires common sense which in some places is in even more short supply than money.

[Hamstray]

If money is an issue don't do stuff that will get you sued.

[PeZook]

If money is an issue don't do stuff that will get you sued.

But you see, that would require rational planning for years into the future and a certain lack of callous disregard for the welfare of your customers beyond their ability to pay for drinks.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I thought of my own situation. I now understand why I dislike night clubs; every one I've been to has impossible crowd densities, lack of exits, and guards blocking the doors as standard. Plus the smoke, because when the state decided that smoking in private areas should be left to the owners, these owners heard "pack 150 people into a converted apartment with no air supply and let them do ten packets each".

But seriously, 200 people in a fire is 18th century stuff.

[AniThyng]

But seriously, 200 people in a fire is 18th century stuff.

A cursory read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hi ... ture_fires would seem to suggest the opposite. Even for 1st world nations.

I mean, come on: "2003—The Station nightclub fire 96 died at the scene; 4 died from injuries at local hospitals in West Warwick, Rhode Island"

[Ziggy Stardust]

But seriously, 200 people in a fire is 18th century stuff.

Just last year, there were 2 major fires that killed 200+ people. And this is ignoring several major fires which "only" killed over 100 people.

[Sky Captain]

A fire in nightclub can spread incredibly quickly, here is a blaze caught on camera in Rhode island night club. In about a minute the whole place is engulfed in thick toxic smoke. If you couldn't get out in that time chances are you never made it.

Luckily for me the 2 nightclubs I visit most often have pretty basic interrior. One is in a basement of old building and there is little more than bare masonry walls and ceiling, small stage and some heavy wooden benches. Other is located in abandoned Soviet era factory with pretty similar interrior. Both places have very little stuff that could potentially burst in flames in seconds.

However some of the more mainstream nightclubs I have been inside few times have all the potential to turn into mass grave if fire ever erupted when place is crammed full of people.
One or two small doors
Tons of synthetic interrior furnishings
No fire extinguisher in sight

[Surlethe]

Just to be contrary -- 200 people dead isn't anything in a country of 200,000,000 people. It's got to be well within statistical error. So why on earth would something like this merit a nation-wide regulatory response?

[aerius]

Just to be contrary -- 200 people dead isn't anything in a country of 200,000,000 people. It's got to be well within statistical error. So why on earth would something like this merit a nation-wide regulatory response?

Same reason the US goes apeshit on gun control every time there's a school shooting.

[Losonti Tokash]

Because mass casualty incidents that are easily preventable don't become more acceptable just because there's more people alive.

The amount of critical failures that resulted in this is mind boggling. The place was operating illegally because their (fraudulent) fire plan had expired in the summer, the fire extinguishers were empty, no sprinklers, bouncers prevented people from leaving, and the band used pyrotechnics that were specifically for outdoor use only. There's even more but you get the idea.

[Surlethe]

Same reason the US goes apeshit on gun control every time there's a school shooting.

So, basically, pointless tribal posturing?

Because mass casualty incidents that are easily preventable don't become more acceptable just because there's more people alive.

No, indeed, but I'd make a subtler point. A policy response of the sort I'm asking about entails imposing extra regulatory burdens on nightclubs everywhere and imposing a slightly higher tax burden on the people to pay for enforcement. The regulatory burdens increase operating expenses and cut down on the patrons' enjoyment. This decrease in utility per person is small, but when you add it up - tens of thousands of people per night, day after day, year after year - it's not obvious to me that preventing, say, a fire per year is worth the burden imposed on the rest of society.

Then of course there's the point that, as you say, the nightclub was already in violation of several regulations; if it had complied, the disaster would have been prevented. Imposing a higher regulatory burden probably wouldn't even cause a strong decline in the frequency of these events - this would indicate, to me, that on the margin, a nation-wide regulatory response would do more harm than good.

[Stark]

So how many deaths are worth the regulatory burden? Where's your benchmark for horrible deaths in flames vs big gubba?

[weemadando]

How dare the gubmint impinge on your freedom to kill your consumers via neglect.

The invisible hand will naturally correct this and those by killing all your consumers too lazy to trample others in order to escape and continue their productive lives.

[AniThyng]

How dare the gubmint impinge on your freedom to kill your consumers via neglect.

The invisible hand will naturally correct this and those by killing all your consumers too lazy to trample others in order to escape and continue their productive lives.

Don't you see! Personal responsibility, if only people exercised their right to not patronize obvious death traps this will not happen, lol.

[madd0ct0r]

Throwing my hat in with Surlethe for the practice.

Gosh darn it! You're right! Any risk to club goers is in-excusable. Henceforth, to ensure saftey, smoking and pyrotechnics in clubs is banned, all clubbers must wear foil suits and oxygen masks (available at the door) and carry a full fire extinguisher at all times. In the intrest of crowd control and preventing stampedes, the dance floor will be broken up into individual cubicles, and a government mandated inspector will be placed full time in every club to ensure these standards are met.

[Spoonist]

Just to be contrary -

Just to be contrary to the contrarian.

Just to be contrary -- 200 people dead isn't anything in a country of 200,000,000 people. It's got to be well within statistical error. So why on earth would something like this merit a nation-wide regulatory response?

1. Who said it is only 200 dead? Yes, this specific instance is 200 but what do you know about their statistics regarding fires in public events/venues throughout Brazil? Did you even stop to check? Combined it is a national problem.
2. Doesn't wounded count?
3. Sometimes there is a need for a federal response to a localized problem. If a local area can't legislate or enforce the standards set by the nation, then sometimes the correct thing is to add federal law with an inspection unit from a federal level. If it would be a unit with the task of "watching the watchmen" then the cost would be even more insignificant than a statistical error in the national budget.
4. Politics is part of being a democracy. Politics tend to be about emotions. Do you have a better system of rulership than representative democracy for Brazil? Would that system affect people less or more than some short term reaction to a media significant event?
5. Politics isn't necessarily about getting things done, but rather about giving the impression of getting things done and the impression of caring for the voters. So just because politicians cry out for new legislation at a media significant event, doesn't mean that such legislation will actually take place after the media attention dies down.
6. Taking such an approach as you suggest to all everyday issues of needless deaths or injuries would be a mudslide of slippery slope problems. If society as a whole looks at each statistically insignificant issue and ignores them due to their insignificance, then adding up all of those statistically insignificant issues will not be insignificant anymore. The same argument was used by the auto industry in the US versus car security features like the seatbelt for decades after it was implemented successfully in other parts of the world. The problem was that adding each of those statistically insignificant security features up into a category of car related injuries and death easily proved the invalidity of such an approach.

Same reason the US goes apeshit on gun control every time there's a school shooting.

So, basically, pointless tribal posturing?

1. Calling the workings of democracy "pointless tribal posturing" would be missing too many points along the way for me to count out every one.
2. While I agree that there are similar mechanics to these types of events the two does not compare. Fire security legislation on public venues is not an issue where you have an ongoing debate or where you have two opposing sides. Everyone pretty much agrees that increased risk of death by fire cannot be construed as a privilege/right or that there would be some kind of defensive purpose.
3. Legislation or enforcement of things like these are very much created by tragedies such as these where private interest for profit will be regulated for a percieved public good. If there were no such tragedies no such legislation or enforcement thereof would be necessary. The most obvious example would be ferries or cruise liners where legislation and enforcement thereof has always had to be stepped up to make those building the vessels and those running the vessels to make "the right thing" in the aftermath of disasters.

Because mass casualty incidents that are easily preventable don't become more acceptable just because there's more people alive.

No, indeed, but I'd make a subtler point. A policy response of the sort I'm asking about entails imposing extra regulatory burdens on nightclubs everywhere and imposing a slightly higher tax burden on the people to pay for enforcement. The regulatory burdens increase operating expenses and cut down on the patrons' enjoyment. This decrease in utility per person is small, but when you add it up - tens of thousands of people per night, day after day, year after year - it's not obvious to me that preventing, say, a fire per year is worth the burden imposed on the rest of society.

1. I'd say given your history your point isn't subtle at all.
2. Why would "A policy response of the sort you're asking about" only prevent 1 fire per year? Are you assuming some weird levels of inefficiency for your argument here? I mean hiring a single public venue fire inspector in just one city/township usually does more than that.
3. Why would decisions about society not be up to the society itself? If the people want better fire security in their public venues why shouldn't they get that?
4. This sort of shortsightedness can be the end of an industry. In a lot of areas these types of legislation is actually preventing a potential loss of business. If an entertainment industry like night clubs have a couple of tragedies like this hit in a row (like it statistically will eventually) then such a perception of unsafety can and usually will change the consumers behavior. Since each businessholder cannot be supposed to look at the whole picture there needs to be someone who does. If I continue with US car industry's refusal of safety features, that was another factor for its demise (yet a small one). They completely missed the market trend of consumers wanting more security driven branding. Same thing with ferries and cruise liners, where a big tragedy will decrease the business for everyone regardless of how security focused they were, hence having the competition crying for more enforcement of the legislation to not hurt the business. You can currently see that trend in the flight travel business where low price brands cut security to cut costs (like Ryan air) with predictable result. However when accidents do happen it hurts everyone including the regular/luxury brands which have full security measures - so the regular/luxury brands are now starting to actively lobby for MORE legislation and enforcement thereof as a competetive measure against the low price brands.
5. Usually most countries have policies where fire inspections and features are funded by those being inspected. Just like with food handling legislation and inspection. So if Brazil follows the norm then such legislation would not necessarily increase tax costs, instead it will increase prices of entry. Thus only affecting those who actually use the service.
6. In most countries this has added business, not decreased it. Take the obvious example of restaurants and food poisoning, where increased inspection etc will usually lead to more restaurant goers, especially if such inspection results are displayed publicly. Same thing but to a lesser degree have happened with fire security inspections as well. It is just that in northern europe and US we are so used to it by now that we no longer see it as a deciding feature of one venue over another. But when talking to people from countries where this is not as prominent you will definately get a result as soon as your target audience isn't <23.

Then of course there's the point that, as you say, the nightclub was already in violation of several regulations; if it had complied, the disaster would have been prevented. Imposing a higher regulatory burden probably wouldn't even cause a strong decline in the frequency of these events - this would indicate, to me, that on the margin, a nation-wide regulatory response would do more harm than good.

This just shows that you have not looked into the matter using even a simple google search, and instead relies on unsubstantiated conjecture to drive your own personal agenda of what a goverment should be and should do.
Yes there were lots of violations, but that is not the issue of what is driving the suggestion for new legislation. Instead it is the obvious things people like you and me are accustomed to. Enough exits, non-flammable materials in construction etc.
http://world.time.com/2013/01/29/focus- ... fter-fire/

Jaime Moncada, a U.S.-based fire-safety consultant with nearly three decades experience in Latin America including large projects in Brazil, said he was not surprised that one exit was permissible under local law.
Shown a blueprint of the club obtained by the AP, he calculated that the farthest point from the front door was 105 feet (32 meters), and regulations in most Brazilian states dictate that a second exit is required only if the distance is 131 feet (40 meters) or more.
For the same reason of distance, Moncada said sprinklers and alarms would not be required.
“For an American audience, it is crazy to think that a place would have only one exit,” he said.
In Brazil, he added, that would be the norm.

Then there is the underfunded inspections and local corruption necessitating a federal response.

In Brasilia, the nation’s capital, lawmakers in the lower house worked on a proposal that would require federal safety minimum standards across Brazil. Now states individually create such laws.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/01/29/focus- ... z2JdcsMv8v

So in summary, you are wrong in the specifics as well as the generally theory.


Back to you contrarian.

[Stark]

He's certainly correct that enforcement is a case of diminishing returns (just like in law enforcement in general, or quality assurance etc), which is why I specifically asked what dollar value makes it 'worthwhile'. Obviously I don't care about the 'reduced enjoyment' of patrons in a building that has less chance of killing them, but regarding enforcement, compliance, etc there certainly could be a point at which someone says 'spending $100M to reduce fire deaths this year by 0.02 might not be best use of public funds'. Sadly all the zealots got in so we'll never hear him putting his money where his mouth is.

Of course, I live in a country where hospitality and venues are heavily regulated and am involved in a similar compliance process, so none of is is probably relevant.

[Spoonist]

Throwing my hat in with Surlethe for the practice.

Gosh darn it! You're right! Any risk to club goers is in-excusable. Henceforth, to ensure saftey, smoking and pyrotechnics in clubs is banned, all clubbers must wear foil suits and oxygen masks (available at the door) and carry a full fire extinguisher at all times. In the intrest of crowd control and preventing stampedes, the dance floor will be broken up into individual cubicles, and a government mandated inspector will be placed full time in every club to ensure these standards are met.

Surlethe at least put in effort to actually have an oppositional view. This is just a feeble absurdum fallacy.
You definately need more practice.
So for your next assignment an absurdum fallacy needs to be much more trollish. You need to add much more vitriol and much more generalizations plus where are the smilies or 4chan images? Then you need some reference to nazis and a sprinkling of paranoia. Then you should tie it in to a popular but unrelated hotly debated topic. Here is a primer for you to continue with:

Fuck, so much ignorance! Off course, you're all soooooo right! Any risk to club goers is in-excusable. Henceforth close all zee clubs and send all clubgoers to the trains. Then do an anslusch on all zee guns for public safety as well, what is next? My car? Are you going to take that as well, you fuckers? Just go ahead and go genocidal on all the other liberties that we used to have.
Heil ze future of the communist state oppression.

Yes, the german words should not be spelled correctly, that is another way to trigger responses. Extra points if you can be bothered to replace all the S with german ß as well and always mix nazims, socialism and communism up real good for that extra spicy response. You can probably add spelling errors and all caps sections as you see fit.

[madd0ct0r]

point being spoonist, at some point we have to make the trade off between risk and cost (in reduced fun / access to nightclubs)

Where do we draw the line?

[Spoonist]

point being spoonist, at some point we have to make the trade off between risk and cost (in reduced fun / access to nightclubs)

Where do we draw the line?

You were actually trying to make a point with that post? One that Stark had already made? (And made again since?)
Honestly, come on, at least add some humor if you have nothing else to contribute.

... diminishing returns ...

That I think would be up to each nation to decide, preferably through a democratic process not too burdened by corruption. A rich nation has the luxury of being able to care more for its citizens well being where a poor one doesn't, etc.

Now Surlethe and I have been having these types of dialog before, so nowadays I usually skip the middle ground arguments and go straight for pragmatism. Since he specificly, is taking the contrarian view in most of these scenarios it is usually not about middle ground anyway but inserting a different way of thinking. Which mainly stems from an economical view point on social interaction and society.

I think it is refreshing with a well thought out contrarian approach. Most of our discussions on SDN instead usually comes from the third degree of idiot responses, ie, someone posts a topic, an idiot responds, someone rebukes the idiot, someone else starts discussing parts of the content of the rebuke which actually becomes the interesting discussion. Like DH nowadays.

[madd0ct0r]

This is the response I expected...

Throwing my hat in with Surlethe for the practice.

Gosh darn it! You're right! Any risk to club goers is in-excusable. Henceforth, to ensure saftey, smoking and pyrotechnics in clubs is banned, all clubbers must wear foil suits and oxygen masks (available at the door) and carry a full fire extinguisher at all times. In the intrest of crowd control and preventing stampedes, the dance floor will be broken up into individual cubicles, and a government mandated inspector will be placed full time in every club to ensure these standards are met.

Foam party Ibiza floats above your bureaucracy!

Goddamn kids don't recognize a feeder line when you hit them with it, or have foam parties gone out of fashion again?
Why should it be up to a nation to decide what the fire regs are? You can't simply hand wave it with democracy with minimal corruption, since in this very case, that approach has failed.

Why is political self-intrest nobeler then economic self intrest?

[Losonti Tokash]

There is the rather obvious point that dead people generally stop contributing to the economy, along with the fact that fire regulations are generally very simple and cost effective. It's also true that even though Brazil's regs are very lax, they were not enforced at all in this instance. Finally, as has already been mentioned, businesses receive benefits from an increased public perception of safety as well.