Hello Ed, As you know statistics can be used to paint the picture one wants to see. We witnessed that in Rochester.
Perhaps the word "responsible fire protection" is better suited. Regardless of whether its one person or 100 people cross contamination of the potable water supply is unacceptable. We often find ourselves far removed from the consequences of water contamination until someone we know is sickened. As I commented earlier the issue isn't theoretical but technological. I'm not aware of anyone who chose not to install a sprinkler system and or pared the coverage down because of having to install a backflow preventer. Sorry I just don't buy the argument that the cost of installing backflow prevention is diverting funds from fire protection. On the other hand if you had mentioned granite countertops, jacuzzi tubs, or gold plated fixtures you'd have no argument from me. Heart Attacks, yes and that's why we find defibrillators (at appx $2,500 each) in public buildings, offices and even your local supermarket. Early defibrillation increase ones chance of survival some 70-80%, now if we could just stop eating so much in this country. Automobiles, yes and that's why we have seat belts, crumple zones, front airbags, side airbags, impact bars in doors, and even radar to warn us about the car in front and behind. Interesting safety, safety, safety appears in most advertising from the bottom end to the luxury automobiles. When Chrysler first put seat belts in cars the prediction was that it wouldn't sell, well enough said. Most highway deaths are attributable to speeding, aggressive driving and driving under the influence, now if we could just stop being stupid. However those statistics, especially the automobile one, can be turned upside down when one considers the number of passenger miles traveled versus the incident rate. I make that point because the opposition in Rochester used that said argument, and its somewhat true that 3,000 people ain't a whole lot when one looks at the overall population of the country or deaths from other causes like heart attacks and car crashes. My point is that there are times when statistics are invaluable, for example measuring progress. However when it comes to safety, even saving one life, statistics are akin to a double edged sword. Yours in Fire Safety, John Drucker Fire Protection Subcode Official (AHJ) New Jersey -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Vining Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:07 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Backflow: Sprinkler System 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
