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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe