Should Christmas trees be fireproofed?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


If artificial Christmas trees strike you as a bit too Grinch-like in their aseptic modernity but you worry about bringing a tinderbox into your living room, the simplest solution may also be the best one. Researchers at Washington State University and North Carolina State University report in the journal HortScience that keeping a tree well watered is more effective than applying some commercial products designed to reduce tree flammability.

The researchers tested two brands of Christmas tree fire retardant and found that neither was effective on cut trees. In fact, one retardant actually accelerated the drying-out of the tree's limbs, making them more vulnerable to fire.

Placing the tree in a reservoir of water, on the other hand, boosted the tree's water content beyond its natural pre-harvest levels, making it even less flammable than a fresh-cut tree.

Christmas tree blazes are relatively rare but take a national toll, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). An average of 240 home fires began with Christmas trees annually between 2003 and 2006 in the U.S. Those fires were responsible for an average of 16 deaths and 25 injuries each year, as well as some $13 million in property damage. The U.S. Fire Administration has video showing just how quickly a dry tree can go up in flames, and the NFPA publishes a handy list of tips for tree safety—including checking the tree's water level daily.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto/Denis Tabler

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe