John, What is "prudent fire protection?" I think it is fire protection to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from fire (and from fire protection systems) and to reduce property loss from the same. Is it prudent to spend a given number of dollars to save almost no lives by fire protection backflow prevention, when the same number of dollars would save many more lives from another cause? According to the National Center for Health Statics, around 560,000 folks died from heart related causes in 2006. According to the National Safety Council, transport accidents caused 48,071 deaths in 2003. Non-transport accidents killed 61,206 the same year. I find it hard to ignore these statistics.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ed Vining 4819 John Muir Rd Martinez CA 94553 925-228-8792 ----- Original Message ---- From: John Drucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 2:57:56 PM Subject: RE: Backflow: Sprinkler System Todd, and everyone else for that matter. Lets not take a reactive approach here, we hear way too much when statistics are used against prudent fire protection simply because something bad hasn’t happened. We need to remain focused and proactive. The problem isn’t with the concept of preventing backflow, it’s a damn good idea for public safety, the problem is with the technology in accomplishing it. I liken the situation to elevator power shunt trip, now that’s a fiasco. John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
