Am I the only one that is bothered when they see this in a media report, which was found at WFTV in Florida?
Strong winds are helping fuel the fire.
As every firefighter knows, and some people might still remember from 9th grade General Science, three things are needed in order to have combustion.
Saying “wind fuels the fire” is saying oxygen is the fuel.
Of course wind fuels a fire. O2 is fuel as well, at the chemical level. Remove it, and the fire dies. The only problem I see here is a lack of distinction between types of fuel, i.e.solid fuels vs. chemical fuels.
Oxygen is an oxidizing agent, which is required for combustion or burning to occur. It is not a fuel. When an oxidizing agent is present along with fuel and a high enough temperature, combustion or burning occurs. Both the fuel and the oxidizing agent are chemically changed, but only the fuel burns.
Oxygen by itself is not flammable. Since oxygen does not react with itself, it cannot burn. If it could, our atmosphere, composed of 20.9% oxygen, would have burned a long time ago.
it’s the media, while we can try and edit them all we want, they are only going to report what sounds catchy or makes a story
“Fuels” in this context is a verb, in that it exacerbates a condition. It is a common phrase, and I don’t think the public is even aware of the different definitions of “fuel” when it comes to fire.