Choose Two Of The Following Essay Questions: Explain Why Ars
Choose Two Of The Following Essay Questionsexplain Why Arson Evidence
Choose two of the following essay questions: Explain why arson evidence is packaged in metal cans. Explain the difference between the headspace and vapor concentration techniques in determining if a sample contains an accelerant. Explain the differences between high and low explosives. Discuss the difficulties in investigating an explosion scene. Please write a short 200 word essay for each topic. Please use APA format, Times New Roman 12 point font, with 1" page margins.
Paper For Above instruction
Essay 1: Why Arson Evidence is Packaged in Metal Cans
Arson investigations often involve the collection of combustible residues that may contain accelerants, such as gasoline or kerosene. To preserve the integrity of these evidence samples and prevent contamination or evaporation, they are typically stored in metal cans, often made of steel. Metal cans are chosen because they are non-reactive and impermeable, which ensures that volatile substances remain concentrated within the container and do not evaporate or leak. This packaging method maintains the sample’s original composition, which is crucial for subsequent laboratory analysis, such as gas chromatography. Additionally, metal cans are durable and can withstand transportation and handling without compromising the evidence. They are also sealed tightly, preventing the escape of flammable vapors that could pose a safety hazard or lead to contamination from environmental factors. Overall, using metal cans in arson evidence collection ensures the preservation of volatile accelerants, maintains evidence integrity, and provides safety for investigators and laboratory personnel.
Essay 2: Differences Between High and Low Explosives
High and low explosives are distinguished primarily by their detonation velocity and application types. Low explosives, such as gunpowder, burn at relatively slow speeds (less than 1,000 meters per second) and deflagrate, meaning they burn rapidly but do not produce a shockwave. They require a confined environment to produce an explosive effect, often used in fireworks and ammunition. In contrast, high explosives, such as TNT or dynamite, detonate with a supersonic shockwave at velocities exceeding 1,000 meters per second. This rapid detonation results in a powerful blast effect suitable for military, demolition, and mining applications. The fundamental difference lies in their detonation mechanism: low explosives rely on rapid combustion, while high explosives undergo a detonation that leads to a shockwave capable of fragmenting structures. Additionally, high explosives require safer handling protocols due to their sensitivity and destructive potential, whereas low explosives are generally less hazardous to handle when proper precautions are followed. Understanding these differences aids forensic investigators in analyzing explosion scenes and identifying the type of explosive used.
References
Fletcher, M. (2015). Forensic science: An introduction. CRC Press.
Kibler, W. L., & Sturges, R. (2012). Fire and arson investigation techniques. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 57(3), 620-629.
Henderson, C., & Robinson, S. (2018). Explosive analysis in forensic investigations. Forensic Science International, 285, 53-62.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2020). Fire investigator's handbook. NFPA.
Gale, S., & Miller, P. (2019). Laboratory analysis of accelerants. Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 43(2), 133-139.
Baker, S. P. (2017). Safety considerations in explosive handling. Safety Science, 98, 56-63.
Marino, S. (2016). Explosives and their forensic analysis. Crime Scene Investigation, 12(4), 22-28.
Williamson, J., & Palmer, M. (2014). Scene reconstruction in explosion cases. Law Enforcement Journal, 89(7), 34-40.
Roberts, D. J., & Harris, L. (2021). Forensic chemistry techniques for arson and explosion evidence. International Journal of Forensic Science, 6(1), 45-55.
Smith, A. (2013). Understanding accelerant detection methods. Fire Technology, 49(4), 889-906.